politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Sounds pretty Presidential to me
She's running in 2028 for sure.
As much as I, a european, would absolutely love for USA to elect her, I don't think there's any way she wins.
Too many racist and mysogonist cunts around who can't fathom a world where it isn't some ancient white dude in power. Sure Obama won, and look at the regression the right wing (and also the dems for that matter) has seen because so many people had a fucking aneurysm over a black dude in a tan suit eating mustard.
Sadly, most men, despite their politics, will never vote for a woman.
Edit: Downvote reality all you want, the (almost) endless stream of white males elected president doesn't care about your feelings.
They do in every other country. Heard the same about Mexico for years.
We just elected our firstwoman as governor in VA and she won by a larger margin than any other Democrat since the 70s
Sick of the whining that America won't elect a woman when Clinton won the popular vote and Kamala replaced a guy with a 37% approval rating, yet ran on his platform anyway... and that was in the middle of massive inflation. Your sample size is 2.
Clinton would've been president if it weren't for that dumbass James Comey
Ah yes, the CIA Democrat that had no primary opponent.
It's actually more than 2 on a historical scale. I'm not saying a woman cannot or should not be president, I'm saying that the odds aren't in favor.
If you needed a lawyer for some reason, would you refuse to hire a woman because you thought your jury might have misogynists on it?
Apples and oranges.
I'd be willing to bet the problem has more to do with the shit sandwich of corporate-whore-elite neoliberal-lite than it has to do with sexism.
People all over the developed world are hungry for real change and leadership; most are just too ignorant and propagandized by an oligarch-controlled media to know what would improve their lives. All they know is that they don't like the path the world is taking. The vast majority of people born in the last 50 years do not want more of the last 50 years.
I think the issue is that running this piss poor canidates doesn't encourage the voter base to vote and there will always be a percentage of the population that will not vote for a woman.
When elections are decided by a couple of percentage points and you run a bad canidate then the sexists get to decide the outcome.
The elections would not be decided by a couple of percentage points if the Dems just ran with popular policies. Bernie Sanders has clearly shown time and time again that even people as far right as Fox News fans would support him because of his progressive policies. Zohran Mamdani won despite active hostility from Dem Leadership and his opponent getting billions of dollars of support because of his progressive polices.
What this tells me is that if the Dem party threw their weight behind progressive candidates, they would do FDR numbers. In fact, it seems obvious that FDR doing progressive politics is the reason FDR did FDR numbers.
Is this not the logical conclusion my comment?
I swear some people read comments only to try and manufacture an argument
Kamala and Hillary were bad candidates and not progressive. I still voted for them, but I'm sure a lot of people were turned off by their politics and/or gender.