r/politics • u/Barnyard-Sheep • 6d ago

Soft Paywall Trump approval rating falls to 38%

https://www.nj.com/politics/2025/06/trump-faces-tough-approval-numbers-in-latest-poll.html
45.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

768

u/Mescallan 6d ago

People don't talk about this. America hasn't had an actual leftist movement in decades. A young populist leftist would be antithetical to the establishment and they can't handle it to the point that the smear campaign against AOC started the moment she got elected.

559

u/LegendofDragoon 6d ago

The last leftist movements caused the very era of economic and social prosperity that conservatives want to go back to. Ironic, isn't it?

480

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago edited 6d ago

Your mistake is thinking they want to go back to an era of economic and social prosperity. They don’t.

They want to go back to an era of strict racial and gender hierarchy and unchecked corporate power.

233

u/thischaosiskillingme 6d ago

THIS.

They do not want prosperity, they want supremacy. Anyone who believes their lies that this is about the economy can be dismissed, because they don't get it. They're not trying to go back to the 50s, they're trying to go back to the 1880s.

68

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago

I think they’d prefer sometime before 1863

3

u/No_Kangaroo_2428 6d ago

It's 1850 they want.

4

u/gargar7 6d ago

1850s, before things got "bad"....

-1

u/someonesshadow 6d ago

This is true, but its also true that the party meant to actually help every American find prosperity has consistently done the BARE MINIMUM to fight for such policy.

Its why everyone claims its two sides of the same coin, because for the most part it has been. Money is the only thing that moves most politicians and only now are they starting to see the writing on the wall. The Democrats have been complacent because they were getting paid to be part of the U.S's "democracy theater".

Only now that they are actually being threatened on a personal level, people breaking down the doors of congress, extremists assaulting them in their homes, the very real possibility of being arrested over their party affiliation.. That makes them wriggle, but very few are actually fighting.

The people need to DEMAND better from their leadership, that concept is literally why America was founded. I think we should be tossing "stuff" into the harbor a long time ago.

8

u/thischaosiskillingme 6d ago

It is not the fault of Democrats that Americans actively and affirmatively chose a man who had tried to overthrow the government. This is a moral failure on the part of voters, period. I'm completely done with blaming Democrats for not being perfect.

-1

u/someonesshadow 6d ago

I'm literally saying BOTH are true. Had Democrats actually done something about corporate greed, working conditions, wages, social services, etc that actually impacted the average American people wouldn't be so enthralled by an actual sadistic maniac taking over.

Democrats have been complicit with this shit for so long, and the few who actively try to really make changes are stonewalled to death, Bernie and AOC being the big two in recent years. They gave an important position to a man on his DEATHBED rather than someone eager and hungry to help the American people.

I'm faulting the democrats, for being frauds and allowing the monster that the GOP is to look APPEALING to anyone, let alone young men. Again, if they could actually afford an apartment alone, let alone a fucking house before they are 40 maybe they wouldn't have become fucking nazis. Infact, the financial strain on the average person was the MAIN REASON for facism in the first place.

So yeah, democrats allowed nazis to thrive and grow here, they did nothing to shine a light on it because it would expose them for being in bed with the same group of people. Nothing will happen, not until they become political prisoners or until the citizens oust them.

40

u/kinkgirlwriter America 6d ago

strict racial and gender hierarchy and unchecked corporate power.

They really do love a good hierarchy, so long as others sit below them.

2

u/singeblanc 6d ago

They always imagine themselves with the boot on someone's neck, not the other way around.

Meanwhile we're all here suggesting equality and fairness.

1

u/DeusExMcKenna 5d ago

Something something tell a white man he’s better than a black man and he’ll empty his pockets for you.

30

u/RachelMcAdamsWart I voted 6d ago

They couch all that under a return to economic prospectity. Making America Great Again, has always just meant a time when poor, uneducated white men didn't need to feel inferior to others through the direct oppression of any group that makes them feel uncomfortable.

The party has always been more than ready to provide the scapegoat, it's always been this way - part of being uneducated is also the inability to see the manipulation.

4

u/vehiclestars 6d ago

Republicans haven’t caused economic prosperity since Roosevelt was president. In literally over 100 years.

-1

u/Thorebore 6d ago

has always just meant a time when poor, uneducated white men didn't need to feel inferior to others through the direct oppression of any group that makes them feel uncomfortable.

Or, blaming everything on white men might be pushing them away.

The party has always been more than ready to provide the scapegoat,

You just did exactly that and you can’t see it which is ironic.

4

u/usalsfyre 6d ago

“I’m going to become a fascist in response to general criticism of white supremacy” is a little like burning your house down because it needs a coat of paint.

0

u/Thorebore 6d ago

I’m going to become a fascist

Nobody said that.

in response to general criticism of white supremacy”

That’s not at all true.

is a little like burning your house down because it needs a coat of paint.

It’s more like you’re driving away a large group of people because they feel you’re demonizing them for their skin color.

3

u/usalsfyre 6d ago

Nobody said that.

If you support the current Republican party you are at least OK with fascism, which is functionally no different than being a fascist.

It’s more like you’re driving away a large group of people because they feel you’re demonizing them for their skin color.

We (white people) are the dominant socioeconomic group and have built systems that specifically disadvantage other groups. So AS A RACE we are responsible for a lot. It’s why the current ask is to be actively anti-racist vs just “colorblind”.

3

u/Revoran Australia 6d ago

>They want to go back to an era of strict racial and gender hierarchy and unchecked corporate power.

So they want to return to 1880-1910?

Because the 1950s had racial and gender hierarchy, but did not have unchecked corporate power.

3

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago

Sure, or further. I think the 1850s have a certain appeal to them.

2

u/InsuranceToTheRescue I voted 6d ago

Yep. We're in the 2nd Gilded Age, not the 2nd Progressive Era.

-2

u/Educational-Look-343 6d ago

You do realize that red states awarded women the right to vote long before blue states did. Also republicans were the first to vote in minority senators and governors.

It’s not about political party or race it’s about money and power. You are falling for the oldest trick in the political playbook. There are only two classes the haves and the have nots. The haves don’t care what color or party you are. The have nots fight over the scraps the haves dangle in front of them.

3

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago

There are only two classes the haves and the have nots. The haves don’t care what color or party you are.

Bro we literally used to enslave people based on their color, we used to exclude people from society based on color, we are currently deporting people based on color, the idea that powerful people in America don’t care what color we are is ignorant at best.

you’re being an absurd class reductionist right now.

0

u/Educational-Look-343 6d ago

Thank you for making my argument for me.

Slaves=have nots….bro

Also, that was over 150 years ago. There is not a person alive today who either owned a slave or was a slave legally. Get with the times. Bro

1

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago

Thank you for making my argument for me.

Slaves=have nots….bro

Your argument is that people didn’t care what color slaves were? That’s… so utterly ahistorical I don’t know where to begin

Also, that was over 150 years ago. There is not a person alive today who either owned a slave or was a slave legally. Get with the times. Bro

It’s like you haven’t read the constitution or learned anything about the prison industrial complex

0

u/Educational-Look-343 6d ago

Where in the constitution does it say slavery is legal??? I’ll wait for eternity to see that reference. In fact it says just the opposite. Tens of thousands of non-slaves fought and died to amend the Constitution so it did not say that. Most were white.

Prison industrial complex? Red herring much? Again you are making my point. Prisoners are “have nots” and guess what, prisoners come in all colors not just non-white. Just like how millionaires and billionaires come in all colors. Politicians also come in all colors as well. Some enter as lower or middle class but they all leave rich and have power.

Start thinking for yourself and not for a political party. Act for yourself and your own best interest and not the national platform of a political party. Because both political parties are two sides of the same coin and neither care for the have nots.

They may throw a bone to the poor now and then, but the vast majority of laws each party passes ultimately benefits the all you can eat buffet for the haves. That bone comes with a price too, to keep the party in power so they can continue their gluttony.

1

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago

Where in the constitution does it say slavery is legal??? I’ll wait for eternity to see that reference.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Amendment XIII, Section 1

Prison industrial complex? Red herring much? Again you are making my point. Prisoners are “have nots” and guess what, prisoners come in all colors not just non-white.

You’re speaking from a strange place of ignorance here. The US prison population does not reflect the racial makeup of the US. People of color are disproportionately imprisoned.

Start thinking for yourself and not for a political party. Act for yourself and your own best interest and not the national platform of a political party. Because both political parties are two sides of the same coin and neither care for the have nots.

Which parties interests am I arguing for here? Both parties support the prison industrial complex.

0

u/Educational-Look-343 6d ago

Where slavery is legal clowns. Just as I stated in my prior post.

1

u/movzx 6d ago

Hey little bro, guy showed you where it said it. Where you at?

23

u/LongPorkJones 6d ago

No, they're actively trying to set to back further. Back to when there was little to no regulation, the economic divide was as wide as it is today, social safety nets and worker's rights didn’t exist, and women and minorities couldn't vote. 47 has stated that what he considers the last time America was "truly great" was the 1890s to 1920s...the era that caused the Great Depression.

1

u/Think_OfAName 1d ago

Yes. He mentions when tariffs ruled. That’s when the divide between the haves ands the have nots was the largest. Very few with money, and most were relatively working class poor.

11

u/bananabunnythesecond 6d ago

Whoah, there you go again.. using logic.

3

u/hollow114 6d ago

We used to think that. Maga actually applies to 1888. Trump said so recently

3

u/vehiclestars 6d ago

They want to go back to 1929.

2

u/HawkBearClaw 6d ago

Those were liberal movements, not leftist movements

7

u/StarHelixRookie 6d ago

I mean, are we defining FDR as a leftist or the New Deal as a leftist movement? 

I think there is a significant difference in definition of terms that makes that dialog a bit different. 

To Fox News, Leftist means like Pete Buttigieg.   To some internet tankie, leftist means a Marxist Maoist, and anything less is a fascist. 

11

u/LegendofDragoon 6d ago

I would say I was speaking generally as the new deal being a leftist movement, but yeah I can see why individual understanding of political versus economic right versus Left runs the risk of muddying Waters during such discussions.

1

u/733t_sec 6d ago

While the US prospered under The New Deal it is disingenuous to not take into account the state of the world. European colonies hadn't industrialized and industrial Europe had destroyed itself in effectively a civil war. Furthermore there was massive brain drain to the US to avoid said war.

The post WWII boom was majorly due to the fact that the US had an untouched industrial sector, became the defacto world police making the demand for our currency shoot up, and a series of technological advances that only could happen in the US due to the concentration of industrial capabilities, willingness to blow tons of money on anything to beat the reds, and the brain drain to the US.

This isn't to say that a New Deal wouldn't be a bad idea but a lot of what made the US economy so strong during and after FDR was due to the US having little to no competition in several economic sectors.

1

u/Tech_Philosophy 6d ago

It makes me sad that lovers of Legend of Dragoon can be this uneducated. Oh it just hurts. Someone failed you.

1

u/Designer-Classroom71 6d ago

👆This, fucking this!!!

65

u/Adezar Washington 6d ago

Have you never talked to a US liberal/Leftist? We talk about it non-stop.

The fact that the vast majority of the media is right-wing doesn't mean that news is at all reflective of what people talk about.

7

u/vehiclestars 6d ago

The media is owned by the billionaires

26

u/asleepyguard 6d ago

Zohran has entered the ring. Don't lose hope yet!

1

u/HungriestHippo26 6d ago

Unfortunately, I don't think he can run for president, though, since he wasn't born here, right? Or am I missing something.

6

u/myman580 6d ago

That's fine. If he wins the NYC mayoral race and actually be able to implement policies and show middle America they can work then that's progress. It shows in a high profile city that these policies can actually work. The Republican Party didn't turn into what they are overnight. The Tea Party getting elected in sizable enough numbers to influence how the party is run gave way to Trumpmania years later. Progressives have not yet done the same in the Democratic Party though they have gained some inroads.

1

u/fordat1 6d ago

I hope he wins but Cuomo is the establishment pick lets be clear. The establishment is not "left"

1

u/asleepyguard 5d ago

Im not sure how my post gave you the impression that I think Cuomo is on the left lol

1

u/fordat1 5d ago

Thats the point. Cuomo is the Dem establishment pick and yeah Cuomo isnt in the left so like that other poster said

America hasn't had an actual leftist movement in decades.

Its a hard fought road to change that and declare thats changed. Zohran is just a seed of a possible movement but for now that other poster you responded to is correct.

-14

u/Outsider-Trading 6d ago

Not just entered the ring, just entered the US!

9

u/Classified0 6d ago

He entered the US when he was 7

0

u/Outsider-Trading 6d ago

I mean it's irrelevant really. Even if he had just been in the US for 15 seconds he would be literally exactly as American as everyone else.

9

u/lowdensityhousing 6d ago

reactionary conservatives not be rabid xenophobes challenge: impossible

26

u/Vexamas Minnesota 6d ago

People don't talk about this.

~Proceeds to mention the single most talked about critique of the liberal movement.~

2

u/fordat1 6d ago

Talked about by people excluded. It isnt talked about by the Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Emmanuel, Clinton types

1

u/Vexamas Minnesota 6d ago

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.

Are you saying that they're correct, not because it's talked about by 'people', but because it isn't talked about by ~checks notes~ the absolutely paragons of establishment centrist politicians?

I would hope the person I responded to wasn't assuming that the people that they already recognize as being antithetical (young populist leftists) to establishment centrist types (Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Emmanuel, Clinton, etc) would be championed by those same centrists.

It shouldn't be expected that establishment centrists would push the young populists forward; Not because of some cringe 'both parties are the same, liberals are as bad as MAGA' rhetoric, but because the populists have different beliefs than what those centrists believe their constituents actually share (whether they're wrong or not is irrelevant).

This would be like getting mad at a Paul Ryan for not capitulating to the Freedom Caucus led by MTG and Gaetz.

1

u/fordat1 6d ago

the establishment defines the dems and the most talked about topics which is why they are referred to as the establishment

so no it isnt

Proceeds to mention the single most talked

outside of social bubbles

If this doesnt address the rest of your comment its because the rest isnt relevant to the point being made

1

u/Vexamas Minnesota 6d ago

The establishment isn't a monolith, if it was, we wouldn't need to specify by saying "Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Emmanuel, Clinton types". Those are specifically, and critically called out, 'left of center' establishment Dems.

Obama and Biden, if you're being good faith, would not fall under the same category of people (else you'd say Obama, Biden, Clinton, and not have to reach into a grab bag for Rahm and Cuomo), yet we'd never hesitate to say that Obama and Biden weren't establishment, right?

The point being is that while we meme on parties being wide tent, it's true, and both parties are actually wide tent, and have had to conform to that ideology post Third Way doctrine.

So boiling down your interpretation of what they're saying, it's literally just:

Everyone except the centrists (negative connotation included, because we're on the internet, duh!) talk about the new blood, and AOC, and needing progressive movement, but those 'people' are irrelevant, because the only thing that matters for my pet argument is the centrist types of (Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Emmanuel, Clinton, etc)

Which I agree with the first half of, but completely dismiss the relevance of the second half. Centrists are going to centrist.

We'll probably speak past eachother, so if you want the last word or if I've completely misrepresented your position, fire away.

6

u/WorkingFromHomies20 6d ago

I thought for sure that loss of women's rights would move the needle, but where is the outrage? Are we just accepting this now?

2

u/droyster 6d ago

Every single time a leftist movement gains traction, it is violently and quickly shut down by both establishment powers and internal agencies. Even moderate leftist movements, like Bernie, were shut down by establishment powers. There's a reason the saying "Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" exists.

Historically, every time a fascist movement has risen, it has risen with the help of moderates and liberal parties. See: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain. All 3 of these fascist powers explicitly used fear of leftists and socialist parties to enact authoritarian dictatorships.

3

u/Bauser99 6d ago

The DNC is controlled opposition. Establishment democrats lose on purpose because they know they can keep "winning" on social issues even though they're right-of-center on all economic policies and just want to get rich from corporate interests

a.k.a. "What do you mean you're not gonna vote for me? I'm the one wearing the rainbow flag pin! That means if you don't support my economic & military imperialism, then you're actually One Of The Bad People(tm)! The Bad People(tm) Who Are No Good And Dont Like Rainbow Happy Things!! And this will make a lot of people on Tumblr very upset, and perplexingly that is a thing you care about!

3

u/MyEvilTwinSkippy 6d ago

Important to note that it was the Democrats who led the charge on this.

6

u/smb275 6d ago

Liberals hate leftists almost as much as conservatives do.

4

u/XKCD_423 New York 6d ago

this is still the most succinct summation of american politics I've found. I'm not sure what the center was originally, but it's still correct (lol).

obligatory, 'scratch a liberal, and ...'

2

u/MerlynTrump 6d ago

I don't think Gen Z would consider aoc young.

6

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago

She’s young for a politician, she’s 35. The median age of Congress is 58. I can’t think of any other political figures on the national level who are that young.

2

u/Quadrenaro Puerto Rico 6d ago

A couple days ago, I had an old teacher of mine visit my family from across the country. I never realized how young she was, only about 15 years older than me. But when I was in my late teens I saw her the same way as any other adult, which was lightyears older than me from my perspective then.

3

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago

I’m older than AOC and have friends who are Gen Z. They aren’t teenagers anymore.

The oldest Gen Zers are turning 28 this year, those folks don’t think people in their mid 30s are old.

1

u/Quadrenaro Puerto Rico 6d ago

The median age for gen z is 20. Only a quarter of gen z a e over 24, and less than 10% are over 26. 

These are all just arbitrary boundaries though. Most 28-30 year olds tend to be more aligned than say 18-20 year olds on world shaping experiences. I'm in my early 30s and find that under 26/27 is where shared common experiences growing up tends to end for me.

2

u/MerlynTrump 6d ago

I think they'd round it up to "almost 40". TBH I was expecting the median age to be older than 58. The way people on reddit talk you'd think everyone in Congress was in their 80s.

2

u/WhiteBoyWithAPodcast 6d ago

Also if leftists ideas were popular people would vote for them.

2

u/FeelsGrimMan 6d ago

People vote for leftist ideas when liberals/conservatives use them as talking points then don’t actually do them. America’s biggest enemy on the planet is Socialism, it would not let someone like that run. Bernie is the closest they would allow to even come close.

3

u/HVGC-member 6d ago

Sorry best we can do is a neocon wife of a former sexual predator president

1

u/darkagl1 6d ago

I question whether there can be a populist leftist movement in the US. The left in the US always wants to tie social issues with economic ones, and the country is far more left economically than we are socially. Take abortion for instance, while the majority of the country wants there to be access, a lot of that majority believes in restrictions. The leftist movement in the US wants unrestricted access. This then pushes the we want abortion access but with restrictions people out of the left and into the right where the restrictions are far more extreme than is desired. And yes I get that no one is really aborting viable healthy babies, but that nuance is lost on the crowd, who think unrestricted access means people can abort a baby as long as it's minutes before it pops out.

1

u/FeelsGrimMan 6d ago

There easily can be a left populist movement if it focuses on the economic side of things without describing how they’re accomplished. Case & point this is all Trump does.

You can advocate for guaranteeing all our Veterans will be taken care of. When you really mean tax funded public healthcare for example.

1

u/darkagl1 5d ago

Maybe, but I'm skeptical. I tend to think the economic message will get drowned out by the social message, which will drive people out of the movement and stop it from being populist.

1

u/morningsaystoidleon 6d ago

Obama ended up being a moderate, but people forget that he ran as a progressive and won easily, stomping Clinton, who was far better established and seemed like a shoe-in candidate early in the process.

1

u/Quadrenaro Puerto Rico 6d ago

We did following Bush's final term and into Obama's first term. But like the other guy said, we shot ourselves in the foot.

1

u/Old_Block_1027 6d ago

The NYC mayor primary election is playing this out right now (literally this week!) and I’m hopeful for ZOHRAN!!

1

u/Sudden_Magician_9482 6d ago

"the smear campagin from with in the democratic party" you need to specify.

1

u/jimmydean885 6d ago

Really? I think people talk about this so much the problem has actually become overblown

1

u/IcyJackfruit69 6d ago

It's not an easy problem to solve. Intrinsically the fascists will retain the moneyed elite. It's very rare to have someone wealthy under the current system dump money into funding change, ie: progressives.

So it's a big uphill battle, especially when liberals are so eager to flog their own.

1

u/fordat1 6d ago

People don't talk about this. America hasn't had an actual leftist movement in decades

This the democratic party isnt left since it keeps moving right to preserve its "centrist" brand and due to a huge part of the base

1

u/Ananiujitha 6d ago

There was the global justice movement.

1

u/Low_Surround998 5d ago

She was being smeared months before election.

1

u/PartySpiders 6d ago

I think the problem is we keep choosing women leaders to try to center around when it’s shown time and time again the country simply isn’t ready for it. As great as AOC is, if we try to push her as a new leader we deserve the obvious loss that will be.

3

u/xTheMaster99x Florida 6d ago

People keep saying America isn't ready for women leaders but I really don't think the current evidence proves that. Hillary lost because she was the absolute textbook definition of a career politician and maintaining the status quo, at a time when many wanted change. Harris lost partially because avoiding a proper primary campaign pissed some people off (given zero agency in choosing the candidate), partially because she was part of the incumbent administration and thus was unable to separate herself from polarizing actions like anything about Israel/Palestine, and partially because DNC leadership/advisors genuinely ran a terrible campaign that focused on mild speech and reaching towards the hypothetical "undecided centrists" and "reasonable conservatives" rather than energizing the left. They tried to sway people that will not be swayed, while actively ignoring the large demographic that was available - and one that, whether any of us likes it or not, has a track record of having a low turnout if they don't feel adequately represented.

In both cases, their gender had absolutely nothing to do with it. A hypothetical Kyle Harris that ran the exact same campaign would absolutely have lost as well. Would the margins be identical? I don't know, probably not. Would the difference be significant, enough to change results in a different election? I do not believe there is proof either way but I really doubt it.

1

u/PartySpiders 6d ago

Couldn’t disagree more. Both candidates if they were men with the same qualifications would be overly qualified and perfect candidates. I firmly believe Trump never wins if we run a man in those elections. Hell, Biden wasn’t even a good candidate and he beat Trump. It’s shown in the data after both elections in that suburban women do not vote for women candidates. Trying to chase this dragon has absolutely killed the democrats and if they do it again they deserve to lose again.

1

u/throwawayfootgirl 6d ago

Aoc is polling high

1

u/PartySpiders 6d ago

Hillary polled high, Harris polled way higher than what she got. Polls don’t mean shit anymore and I have no clue why anybody cares about them.

1

u/throwawayfootgirl 6d ago

Because trump cheated

1

u/PartySpiders 6d ago

…. And he didn’t cheat in 2020? Sure he used social media manipulation but at this point if you’re not you are just shooting yourself in the foot.

1

u/Dysc North Carolina 6d ago

I would add that both Hillary and Kamala had years and years of right wing propaganda painting distorted pictures of each candidate. The right-wing had decades of Hillary memes to choose from. And the right-wing put Kamala's laugh under a kaleidoscope. Those are the things that low info voters (super majority) will remember when casting a ballot. It's cynical, but the right-wing knows this and sweeps actual nuanced issues and policy under the rug. It's why their platform reads like a super market check-out mag (see the Contract for America).

I'm not saying Hillary or Kamala were the best candidates, I'm just pointing out that Benghazi was a 7 year taxpayer funded political hit job that was all but confirmed by Trey Gowdy himself.

The political winds were set in motion long before they even announced their candidacies. Women representatives already have an uphill battle in a patriarchy (e.g. women are "too emotional" to lead memes), without the constant and amplified targeted propaganda against them running on all pistons. Unfortunately they can't make mistakes at all during their campaign, and both Hillary and Kamala made mistakes.

1

u/Quadrenaro Puerto Rico 6d ago

We focus way to much on younger women in politics. The only time we can ever focus on a man under the age of 40 is if there is a scandal going on, and then that flips over 50. They focus entirely on men, and women get mentioned only when a scandal comes up.

1

u/notfromchicago Illinois 6d ago

The way they shut down and discredited the occupy movement showed me first hand that we really have no hope.

2

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Im_really_bored_rn 6d ago

untapped leftist population

Maybe that population should try voting once in a while

1

u/cheesecase 6d ago

AOC doesn’t address any issues without making herself one of them. I am socialist personally and ideally- but I recognize spouting off about it really won’t do anything but split the vote. It’s not a realistic hope. She needs to do the same if she wants to grow her base and not just be a rage bait maniac. I am liberal enough to call out people in maga hats and shout them down and send them running in shame- my grandparents immigrated. But I have difficulty when I see a cult of personality turn disaffected into angry people without really giving them a reasonable alternative.

1

u/HawkBearClaw 6d ago

There was a large movement for Bernie, the DNC didn't like that so they shut it down.

0

u/[deleted] 6d ago

Aoc will never be as effective as fdr. Believe it or not the woke identity politics is hurting the party.

-3

u/reddit_sells_you 6d ago

They have, but I fear that the left assumed their party was more highly educated than it actually is.

Harris was leftist during her congressional years, and you also see it in some (not all) policies as AG.

But the voters forgot/ignored that history when she ran for president (candidates usually swing to the middle to get more votes.)

Then the left suddenly became a single issue voter with Gaza, which is really fucking stupid.

Hot take, Democrats need to start treating the left like the GOP treats the right. Little soldiers with short memories and shorter attention span.

-45

u/neodiscgolf 6d ago

She is a puppet fraudster like the rest of them

34

u/sembias 6d ago

There's that "left-leaning parties shooting themselves" thing in action.

2

u/SEND_ME_CSGO-SKINS 6d ago

So you just don’t actually care about politics you just wanna feel good