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.”

  • hydrashok@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      72
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

            • TheFogan@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              It’s the point though, not even completely undefended, still not 10% of the same level of defense as the primary points of capitalism. IE just note how much force, propoganda etc… is pushed at any country that isn’t capitalist enough. Right now fishing boats are being bombed. or even non military force, like the trade embargo’s on cuba etc…

              and heaven knows how many government sponsered coups etc… Point is a lot of resources go into doing everything possible to make things that aren’t capitalist enough have a very steep uphill climb.

              • SeptugenarianSenate@leminal.space
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                16 hours ago

                Bet it all on black and maybe you can win some sort of prize, but you will still be spending the houses money until we all start to agree that liquid cash is not a stabilizing mechanism for mediating our intermittent desire to hold various kinds of power over one another in different situations typically encountered throughout our lives, and that more complex and mindful methods/systems of resource allocation + public investment strategies can be developed as well as successfully popularized in a way that can be intrinsically understood and widely accepted by most new or developing (younger) people who will be steering the general trajectory of our worldwide “society”.

              • nymnympseudonym@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                15 hours ago

                I’m pretty sure socialist and communist countries also do perverted things like blatant propaganda, needless use of force, etc.

                Cuba is a great example. Cuba wasn’t embargoed ‘because Communism!’ (though that was, stupidly IMO, part of the USA political messaging)

                Castro did summary political executions & imprisonment , killed the free press , enacted torture

                What exactly did you want? Continue doing business like “NBD, you do you?”

                • TheFogan@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 hours ago

                  I’m not doubting the problems of any government. however to make the case that it’s not grounded on the fear of communism… It’s not like that’s exactly uncommon in countries we are continuing to do business like NBD, Isreal, Russia, Saudi Arabia to name a few off the top of my head.

                  Again not disagreeing with the general concept that communist countries aren’t exempt from committing atrocities. Difference is a capitalist country does them “it’s a growing pain”, or “they are starting out, once they get big enough they’ll fix it, just like the US did”.

      • AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not true. Clinton won the popular vote

        I want to vote for a woman, but not a Zionist with plans for lots of tax rebates

        I didn’t vote for Biden, I didn’t vote for Clinton, I didn’t vote for Harris, and I didn’t vote for Obama (but I did caucus for him because public option)

      • bobzer@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s hilarious. Everyone in this thread literally ignoring the lived experience of women, trying to convince everyone their country isn’t misogynistic.

        • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          Eh. She already meets the requirements. She’s old enough. That’s it. And she is eminently more qualified than the current president. She’ll be 39 in 2028. The youngest president, Teddy Roosevelt, was 42.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            I still think being young AND a woman AND progressive might be courting a bit more voter reluctance than I’d want to gamble with. The progressives will eat it up, but we’re gonna need some moderates to get over the finish line.

            I’d prefer she go VP for a Tim Walz type for two terms and then run after that. She’s only going to get better at navigating DC politics, which she’ll need to actually accomplish any of whatever platform she runs.

            I feel like pushing AOC in 2028 is premature. I’d definitely vote for her and hope she wins, but the odds don’t seem great and the consequences of losing are more dire than I’m personally comfortable with.

            • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Look what thinking cautiously has got us. Look what thinking audaciously has got them. What rational rational Republican voter would have thought that Trump was a good potential candidate in 2016? Rational opinion was that Trump was a candidate doomed from the start. Yet the Republicans through caution to the wind and went for the inspiring candidate. And look what it got them.

              Every election we choose the path of least resistance. Every election we talk ourselves out of the truly inspiring candidate, all in the name of electability. How many Democrats have voted against the progressive primary candidate, the one who could inspire, the one who could rally…all in the name of electability? Hillary was the candidate in 2016 because she was more electable than Bernie. Biden was the candidate in 2020 because he was more electable than Bernie. Biden was nearly the candidate in 2024 because sticking with the incumbent was simply the rational and cautious move.

              Maybe it’s time we have faith for once. Maybe it’s time we believe in ourselves and our message for a change. Maybe it’s time to stop talking ourselves out of running our strongest potential candidates. As a great poet said, you have to believe in impossible things, or else they can never come to be.

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                The difference being that the right wing is populist and authoritarian by nature. You can’t drum up the left with the same methods as the right. Biden was a boring geriatric neo-lib, and he’s the one who won.

                I don’t wanna wish on a star when I’m gambling with fascism. Yes I want progressive policies, I want more than progressive policies. I would have no problems with AOC being the president. But it’s not about what I want. It’s not about what you want. It’s about what the 10s of millions of voters who don’t lean far left want.

                I don’t have that kind of faith in the average American voter, even the average non-Republican voter. I think progressive policies are a winning platform, I just think AOC specifically is too risky of a run right now. Run Tim Walz, or some other 50-65 year old white progressive, with AOC as VP. That’ll make it easier for her to demonstrate the efficacy of her platform so she can run afterwards.

                I like her, if anything she’s a bit moderate for me, but she’s DC young. The stodgy moderates might not show up because they’re afraid she’s inexperienced. If you can find a way to sway millions of voters between now and then, great. I’d love to see it.

                But we’re not doing ourselves any favors by appealing to our hearts at the expense of our brains. Maybe the next 3 years will alter the political landscape in a way that makes her a safer candidate. I’m both excited at that prospect, and terrified at what would be necessary to do that. But if not, we have to face the landscape as it is.

                A chance at the best candidate isn’t necessarily with the risk of the worst candidate. We cannot afford to be reckless right now.

    • ronl2k@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Any woman who runs will be running with the baggage of feminist politics. This is not the right time for it.

      • hydrashok@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 hours ago

        I disagree. I just think what I want is a candidate that has a coherent policy and their campaign to be elected isn’t solely/majority “but I could be the first female president” slop. Hillary and Kamala could have been great presidents, but when the selling point is “I’m a woman” and not much else, that’s not going to resonate with enough people to win an election.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          That’s what you want. And if Lemmy elected the president, I seriously believe the country would be a better place. But it doesn’t, so what you or I want doesn’t really matter that much. What matters is what the stodgy moderate majority wants, and a large portion of them are subtly guided by subconscious bias.