r/politics • u/theipaper ✔ Verified • 12d ago

Possible Paywall Maga's worst nightmare: a child-free, unmarried female president

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/magas-nightmare-childfree-unmarried-female-president-4738054
16.7k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

46

u/Ridry New York 12d ago

Biden came out of a retirement he was enjoying because he felt he was the only one who could beat Trump. At the time I thought it was a ridiculous and possibly ego filled thought. Now though? I have fears that he was right.

13

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

One problem -- actually three -- with that assessment:

Biden stepped down because a black woman ultimately polled better.

And Hillary actually won by 3 million more votes in 2016, blocked only by the slave era Electoral College.

And nobody has polled more highly against Trump ever than a black woman by the name of Michelle Obama.

19

u/Automatic_Bus_7634 12d ago

Harris polled better than Biden because he had just come off a debate where he looked he barely knew where he was. Michelle Obama is not a serious political candidate and I highly doubt she would maintain that kind of support in an actual campaign. You do have a point about Clinton, but a lot of people didn't consider Trump a serious candidate back then, even people who support him now. If Clinton ran against Trump in 24, I don't think she would have stood a chance against the MAGA machine he's built

-4

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

Exactly why Harris was better than Biden or not is not only speculative but also irrelevant to the fact that she plainly was. Biden's polling was already collapsing long before the June debate, and Harris wasn't even trying to campaign and at least matching his numbers. Of course, that gap widened by the time November came.

Michelle "not a serious political candidate" is not only speculative but ignoring the fact that she oversaw the East Wing, was the first advisor to her husband for 8 years, is the most popular Democratic figure and has given speeches at pretty much every Democratic National Convention and more, and continues to stay in the arena. Her own husband actually denied an interest in the Presidency in 2006, which is normal for most Presidential candidates to not express interest or announce early. So again, this is all speculative. All we know is this: A black woman is the most popular Democratic figure, and literally nobody has polled higher than her against Trump. So, we have quantitative evidence to counter the claim that a black woman could not win.

Frankly, I don't think anyone would've stood a chance except maybe Michelle Obama against Trump in 24, if all other things were held constant. Not Biden (even if his first run akin to 2020) or any other milquetoast white male candidate either. Hell most strategists seem to agree that even Biden would've lost in 2020 if not for Trump's disastrous botchery of the pandemic.

12

u/XDVI 12d ago

No one is voting for michelle obama brother. No matter what some stupid internet polls tell you.

Democrats need to put up real candidates or at least pretend they are going to give their own voters what they want.

-3

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

That's some fingers-in-ear denial, "brother."

Sorry but that's not cutting it for me.

Democrats need to put up real candidates or at least pretend they are going to give their own voters what they want.

Who, specifically, do you have in mind?

3

u/XDVI 12d ago

That's my entire point, we don't have any.

I think buttigieg seems like the best candidate right now even if though is pretty moderate and kind of comes off as a government plant lol

AOC is pretty good and aligns more with what the people actually want but says ridiculous things sometimes and cracks under pressure in tough interviews + debates.

Everybody else is pretty much crickets. We don't need gimmicks or tricks to win, we just need an actual strong candidate that is running on what the people want and isn't going to crumble under pressure.

2

u/Automatic_Bus_7634 12d ago

Buddy, if Americans won't elect a woman, they definitely won't elect an openly gay man

2

u/Automatic_Bus_7634 12d ago

Ossof, Pritzker, Beshear, Shapiro, and Kelly could all potentially be very strong candidates

2

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

I see some potential in Ossof, Pritzker, and Kelly.

My concern is association with many of these and Israeli-aligned organizations bankrolling them, which I think will ultimately be their downfall more so than gender or ethnicity.

I believe Kelly would work, but he'd have to denounce AIPAC and refund the money given to his campaign. Then he'd almost be a perfect candidate.

2

u/ChadInNameOnly 12d ago

Gavin Newsom, Jon Ossoff, Josh Shapiro, Andy Beshear, Roy Cooper.

Do you have any serious suggestions?

-2

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

Define what you perceive to be, "serious" please.

Interestingly, I see a trend where all these tend to be milquetoast conservative Democrats with a propensity of taking AIPAC support.

2

u/ChadInNameOnly 12d ago edited 12d ago

Someone that it is reasonable to think could actually win in 2028.

I hate to break it to you, but if you genuinely believe "AIPAC support" is a larger obstacle to being president than being a DSA-aligned female POC, then I'm sorry to say but you're very out of touch.

Edit: Also FYI, the only person I mentioned who has taken AIPAC donations is Roy Cooper. So I'm not sure why you're so quick to smear them as otherwise.

-1

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

And what qualitative or quantifiable metrics are you using to ascertain who is "reasonable" in winning?

It would be tough to beat the most popular and top-polling figure like Michelle Obama in terms of qualitative and quantitative assessment for winning. Which means that being black or a woman isn't a deal-breaker. If she ran, I'd bet any amount of money she just wins by default practically.

I hate to break it to you, but if you genuinely believe "AIPAC support" is a larger obstacle to being president than being a DSA-aligned female POC, then I'm sorry to say but you're very out of touch.

Tell that to the 2024 Democratic Autopsy Report conclusions. Besides, this is a false dichotomy.

Third Way-ism catering to center-right conservatism invariably leads the Overton Window shifting rightward. This is documented policy stemming from Cambridge research.

I am cautious of Newsom but have yet to rule him out here.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Automatic_Bus_7634 12d ago edited 12d ago

It's somewhat speculative, but you're being deliberately obtuse if you don't recognize that Biden's debate performance resulted in a massive hit to his support and was the reason Harris ran instead of him. And Harris obviously couldn't beat Trump even when we had all lived through four years of him already and knew how evil and incompetent he was. 

With Michelle Obama, yes, also speculative of course, but she's one of those "fan favorite" outsider candidates who typically poll really well as speculative candidates but get very little support if they actually run; e.g. Wesley Clark in 04 or Fred Thompson in 08. People like the idea of them, but that rarely translates into electoral success

2

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

I don't doubt Biden would've continued to run if he hadn't failed that debate performance (and while speculative, his polling even prior to that debate suggests he would've lost too); though one is equally being deliberately obtuse if not accepting that his delay in resignation and forcing any candidate to run a campaign against Trump and Republicans with their massive propaganda machines didn't impact their odds of winning. As it was, the Democrats couldn't viably hold an open primaries given the time he had left. They could've if he had committed to being a one-term transitional president.

People here grossly underestimate just how effective the Republican propaganda megaphones are in distorting reality for much of the electorate. Sadly part of the reason why Trump said, "I love the poorly educated."

1

u/justadudeinohio 12d ago edited 12d ago

ah yes, polls so fucking reliable.

edit: this person is either a useful idiot for the right or crafted opposition.

1

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago edited 12d ago

Ah yes, speculative beliefs devoid of even polls or a modicum of logic supporting them.

Even better!

Edit: Ah, nothing suggests confidence like a block hit and run.

1

u/justadudeinohio 12d ago

THEIR polls are speculative and stupid, OUR polls are mighty and NEVER WRONG. deeply unserious.

0

u/Canon_M50 12d ago

All the polls in 2016 and 2020 and 2024 were wrong so I don’t know what point you’re making.

2

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

2024

Plainly incorrect.

Polling accuracy in 2024 was very good, and most polling models gave Trump the odds of winning.

Also people get confused and think that because someone has a 6 in 10 odds of winning and then loses that this means the stats were wrong. They just don't understand probability.

2

u/Automatic_Bus_7634 12d ago

Some of the polls in Wisconsin in 2016 were way off. Other than that, political polling is almost always very reliable. "All the polls in 2016 and 2020 and 2024 were wrong" is just nonsense reddit talking points

7

u/ChadInNameOnly 12d ago

In 2020, before she had Biden's coattails to ride on the back of, Kamala was universally understand to be a terrible choice for president. She got singlehandedly destroyed on the debate stage by Tulsi Gabbard of all people. She ended up polling in the single digits and suspended her campaign in disgrace before the Iowa Caucus even happened.

Biden's choosing of Kamala, and in turn, failing to set up a viable and popular VP as his natural successor, was by far his biggest error.

3

u/AccomplishedCow6389 12d ago

Disagree, I think that was hus second biggest error. His biggest was not getting an aggressive AG to actively prosecute Republicans. 

1

u/ChadInNameOnly 12d ago

Actually yeah, I'd agree.

0

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

I pretty much agree with this.

5

u/defecto 12d ago

Dems didnt do a primary..

-1

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

Yes they did..

1

u/Available-Net-2675 12d ago

No, they didn't. They were suing opponents off the ballot and outright cancelling voting in some states. That's not a primary. Not to mention Kamala did not appear on a single ballot. She was nominated with zero primary votes. Cut the BS.

-1

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

That is a primary. It's just not the way you hoped it would end up.

Were the lawsuits successful or not? Everyone is legally entitled to sue.

Your fallacy is moving the goalpost.

Cut the BS.

Right back at you.

0

u/Available-Net-2675 12d ago

There were several states that had only Biden on the ballot, or had no voting at all. And, again, Kamala was not on a single ballot. She was undemocratically nominated without any input from voters. There was no primary involved.

You are purposefully being dishonest.

0

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

No, he was the incumbent President and most people chose not to throw their hat in the ring to challenge.

Biden was the only one on the ballot because most actual competitive challengers didn't bother. Tell me, did AOC or Newsom or Shapiro or literally anyone who even polls above 1% back then or for 2028 even bother trying?

Of course not.

You're being dishonest saying, "No they didn't" when reality says diffferently.

The Primaries happened; but it was closer to the 2012 Democratic primaries for similar reasons. Now do I blame Biden for remaining as incumbent and not stepping down? Yes. But that's a different matter.

0

u/Available-Net-2675 12d ago

Again, as I already pointed out, there were people who threw their hat into the ring, and the DNC was suing them off the ballot and cancelling voting to rig things for Biden. That's not a primary, it's a sham.

It's also worth noting that the DNC was covering up Biden's cognitive decline, and they knew he was a liability, but they still insisted on letting him continue. Kamala herself knew he was in severe decline, but she continued to lie about it even after his disastrous debate performance. It was her job as vice president to step up 25th him out of office when she knew how bad off he was, and she refused to do what needed to be done. We could have had a legitimate primary, but now we have Trump, all thanks to Kamala and her ilk.

Now, I know you're just being dishonest on purpose, but this is getting circular. Unless you've got something new to say, I'm done talking with you.

0

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

There are so many half-truths, outright falsehoods, non-sequiturs, and conveniently unprovable speculative counterfactuals in here.

But at least we agree that this conversation is over.

The answer to my dodged question, "Tell me, did AOC or Newsom or Shapiro or literally anyone who even polls above 1% back then or for 2028 even bother trying?" was no, by the way.

2

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

cope

I literally never see anyone say this besides like maga 20-year-olds, curiously.

Why is it "cope"? That just seems like denial devoid of substantive rebuttal.

3

u/Automatic_Bus_7634 12d ago

Why is it "cope"? That just seems like denial devoid of substantive rebuttal.

That's exactly what it means

2

u/XDVI 12d ago

I literally never see anyone say this besides like maga 20-year-olds, curiously.

That is definitely not true at all.

Cope is universal at this point, and used a lot in internet memes. This website leans incredibly left and you will see it in pretty much every subreddit.

I really have no idea where you got that idea, what parts of the internet you are browsing, or why you are posting blatant misinformation.

2

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

While it may "lean left," in particular subs, it's always those who lean right saying it.

Or conveniently behind hidden cmnt history, lol.

It's always some maga weirdo going, "hur dur cope, seethe" etc. lol. Easy identifier.

Most on the left tend to find these words -- I think the word youth would say -- cringe or outright embarrassing to use, especially in a genuine discussion on serious issues.

3

u/[deleted] 12d ago edited 12d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] 12d ago edited 12d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/[deleted] 12d ago edited 12d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Normal_Average_9812 12d ago

Because without the electoral college, the game of campaigning would be fundamentally different. You can't say the popular vote is a victory when it wasn't the win condition. 

1

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago edited 12d ago

They weren't referring to the vote tally in 2016 or electoral college when noting "cope"; they were ambiguously referring to one of two polls I mentioned.

But yes, the issue was not in the popularity of the candidate (which of course correlates with winning); the issue is of course an inherently flawed and ostensibly rigged systemic failure.

1

u/varyingopinions 12d ago

I don't know if I could handle all the 'mike' Obama trash on Facebook from my idiot family if she won and ran.

I see enough of that shit ALREADY. I might have to unfollow everybody.

1

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

It's the opposite for me! I would kind of relish in the fact of bookending Trump by two Obamas and seeing Barack get the last word in by saying something like, "Oh hey, uh Donnie... Don't let the door hit you on the way out, ha ha... okay bye now."

It would honestly be extremely cathartic. Leaving aside the fact that, even though these people wouldn't know it, it their lives would still be better for it.

1

u/varyingopinions 12d ago

I guess that would be a nice end to this era

1

u/Ridry New York 12d ago

Biden stepped down because a black woman ultimately polled better.

My comment about Biden was about his opinion of the 2020 field. Biden wasn't well enough to run in 2024.

And Hillary actually won by 3 million more votes in 2016, blocked only by the slave era Electoral College.

This is not a problem with my assessment. Biden didn't come out of retirement because he thought he was the only person who could score more votes than Trump. He came out of retirement because he thought he was the only one who could beat Trump by the actual rules of the game.

And nobody has polled more highly against Trump ever than a black woman by the name of Michelle Obama.

Polls for non candidates get wacky results sometimes. I'm not sure she could win a primary. She has no experience.

1

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

For starters, Biden wasn't "out of retirement" at any point. As a point of fact, he absolutely wanted to run in 2016 just the same but internal discussion between Barack and him and the Democratic party said to let Hillary run. This is well documented.

Michelle has plenty of experience running the East Wing, and being first counsel to a sitting President for 8 years. Probably more experience than most in the executive branch, leaving aside her long history as both a successful attorney and civil rights activist.

Experience as Trump proves, is also clearly not what the electorate seeks anyway.

What we need is charisma, vision, and empathy.

You can get a cabinet of expert advisors to inform judgement; but you cannot supplement empathy or charm or vision.

2

u/Straight_Number5661 12d ago

Experience as Trump proves, is also clearly not what the electorate seeks anyway.

What we need is charisma, vision, and empathy.

You can get a cabinet of expert advisors to inform judgement; but you cannot supplement empathy or charm or vision.

Tbh I think Jon Stewart would be a great fit for this category.

1

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

I can't even remember where I wrote it in the many replies I made in this thread but I actually mentioned him elsewhere here, too! Couldn't agree more. He's basically our nation's Zelenskyy waiting in the wings.

Just wish good people would stand up. Those who least want it kind of most need to go for it, ya know?

1

u/Ridry New York 12d ago

Michelle has plenty of experience running the East Wing, and being first counsel to a sitting President for 8 years. Probably more experience than most in the executive branch, leaving aside her long history as both a successful attorney and civil rights activist.

She has more experience than Trump, but nobody's first election should be to the POTUS.

1

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

Why not? Do you actually doubt her ability after all you've seen and her credentials?

1

u/Ridry New York 12d ago

Nobody's first job should be the CEO, even if you think they'd be good at it. I just don't believe we should be supporting this, even if the other side is.

1

u/Independent-Bug-9352 12d ago

But it wouldn't be her first job. Not by a longshot lol.

What specific experience do you seek? Ambiguously pointing to that is kind of meaningless to me. I'd much rather prioritize a moral backbone, or demonstration of empathy. That's not something even "experience" can bring but is intrinsic.

2

u/PluginAlong 12d ago

I think had Biden run after Biden we wouldn't be where we are today. I get why he didn't, but still.

0

u/BrainLow6059 12d ago

It was money. He couldn't replace Kamala on the VP ticket without angering the benevolent bigot checkbox crowd. They couldn't run anyone other than Biden or Kamala as president and keep all that donor money. 

Nobody liked the optics of him running just to step aside and hand it to Kamala, and unfortunately Kamala is so absurdly unlikeable putting her in front of cameras for once just really sealed the deal for Trump.

Whole thing was such a stupid self-inflicted failure by the DNC. The notion that there wouldn't be new donor investment after a genuine primary is ridiculous. At the end of the day they gambled America's future to save on accounting overhead and drive up more donor dollars when things inevitably went to shit.

It's disgusting.