25% chance she'd run and 0% chance she'd win.
We need to have a discussion as to why the Dems and voters keep tryna nominate women as the President. I have no issues with a woman running and/or becoming President, and I fully support the idea of making history, but the problem is that it's clear as day that in this political climate, running a woman for the presidency is a losing strategy, just imagine in 2016 and just recently if the Dems ran a man how different things could've been right now.
Say what you want about Biden, but his victory against Trump, even as close as it was is an example of how you needed a male candidate to beat him, just like it's eye-opening that Trump's only election victories have come against women with his sole loss against a man.
I don't wanna about Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote; none of that shyt matters if you're not winning where it counts, which is the electoral votes. The popular vote is equivalent to voting for the best-dressed couple at the high school prom, it's nothing more than a popularity contest.
With the rising tensions of race and gender becoming a hot commodity right now, running a Puerto Rican woman is no different than running Kamala. I could see a woman becoming President decades from now, but as of today and the foreseeable future, it's a waste of time because America is too racist and misogynistic; AOC being a person of color and a woman is like a double-edged sword
.
That's without even mentioning her staunch progressive political stances which in this current climate has become a boogyman in politics. Progressive beliefs and policies are this era's version of the 50s/60s when Communism stoked fear among many. Conservatism is equivalent to that era's Capitalism. If this was another country such as Mexico, Cuba, parts of Africa, etc, a woman such as herself, Kamala, etc, with their brand of politics would've had an easier chance of winning than they would in the United States.
Shyt not even a Black man can run in this climate.
