iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Lol he's 39 and will have just turned 41 by super Tuesday. I've no doubt black voters will be rushing to vote for some skinny white guy who looks fresh out of college over appealing black candidates 👍

100

Yeah I'm referring to a political reality in the Dem party. If you're a young inexperienced white guy (especially one that looks as green as Ossoff) - Black and Hispanic voters will have zero motivation to go there in a presidential primary.

100

Oh my goodness I have disagreements with the potential speaker....let me go on social media and play chicken little!!!!!!

000

Hey John so are you and the rest of the press going from Mayor Pete to Ossoff as your new media darling? What happens when it becomes clear his support is too dependent on the suburbs?

300

Yeah and...? Same thing happened in the general. Difference is being a black male potus candidate carries less resistance than being a woman. We've already seen this twice. In fact I'll go even further in saying the path of least resistance in the Dem party today is being a black male candidate.

000

That doesn't make any sense. You could count the number of trump voters on Bsky with one hand. Anyway, the point this podcast is driving at here is the inconvenient reality of *some* people inclined to vote Dem being repulsed enough by her to vote for a flaming fascist. Probably minority men.

100

Not in the minds of people that wouldn't vote for a woman. Especially one that is named AOC.

000

It never ceases to amaze me how many people reflexively treat politics as an exercise in rationality and logic, by posting something like this. It's like watching the same movie 1000 times and being surprised at the end.

010

There are plenty of male POC (particularly Hispanic and black males) that wouldn't vote for a woman presidential candidate. We've already seen this twice. That is what she was driving at.

000

What? Who said they were "worse" than Republicans? They were lousy candidates...that's all.

000

Taking away your crackpipe and bong water.

000

No, the point is they would hate her so much to the point of supporting a super repulsive individual, if given the chance.

100

How do you know he voted that way?

100

TheOP @opmat.bsky.social · 13/05/2026

Appreciate the informative reply.

010

Those other places didn't cut corners in a sloppy attempt to change their state constitution. It's not an easy endeavor. Maybe this can be a lesson to other Dems in other states to make sure all their Ts are crossed before signing off on these things.

100

TheOP @opmat.bsky.social · 13/05/2026

I just gave you an example of how it didn't follow the letter of the law. If the whole judicial system was stacked against you then California and Utah wouldn't have cleared legal scrutiny. It's almost like you people would rather throw victimhood tantrums on social media than get things right.

100

TheOP @opmat.bsky.social · 12/05/2026

If says 90 days *before* election day. Back when it was written there was no early voting so it's up to interpretation. In any case, even if you wanted to say election day, it was still too late. Why don't you just strictly follow the letter of the law to avoid any negative interpretation?

100

And this isn't a partisan right wing court so don't bother trying that one.

100

No they didn't follow procedure by the letter of the law. The first passage of the amendment was way too late, after people had started voting. They're supposed to have it passed 90 days before people start voting in the intervening election. Stop whining and get it right next time!

200

They did it by their state constitutions just like California did. Perhaps not cutting corners is the best way instead of trying to rush things. If the world was conspiring against Democrats California would have been struck down. Maybe stop being a professional whiner on social media and get a life

100

Can you name one battleground state where she didn't underperform the Dem running for senate or governor?

100

They're both remembered as failed presidents during their time in office. What they did afterwords is another story.

000

Not my personal choice but the path of least resistance for the Democratic party (someone with best chance of surviving reelection as president) is a black male candidate. No white male or no woman would survive reelection.

000

They would be remembered as failed presidents.

200

What if a black candidate not named Harris ran successfully? Any chance that can happen?

000

What if she ran and won next time then lost reelection?

100

I know it's a losing battle to come on social media and have a rational discussion on anything but I try. Much easier to just be a reactionary and say things like "right wing courts" and "white supremacy party", the knee jerk hyperbole of the day or what have you....yada yada.

111

You know it's funny because you express a level head and stress the need to avoid hyperbole when discussing the Virginia court case - then talk about "white supremacy party". No secret racial resentments have had a place in our politics for decades. I reiterate my point regarding political balance

211

Stop whining and do it right instead of cutting corners. Not every court in the world is against the Democratic party. You people have developed a habit in professional victimization. Just do it right and don't cut corners!

000

They needed to do it in two consecutive sessions before it goes to referendum. They didn't. They wanted to be expedient and cut corners. Believe it or not, it's entirely possible the world is not stacked against the Dem party.

100

Maybe the legislature can follow the path spelled out in their state constitution instead of being expedient, next time the want to do something that needs to be done.

100

Whichever way you slice it, only 3 judges were appointed when GOP controlled everything. Others were when chamber was split or Dems. Maybe blame the shizzhead lawmakers who didn't bother to follow their own state constitution to be expedient, instead of judges.

100

When's the last time anyone tried to redraw congressional districts there in a non census year for non census reasons? It's also not an excuse if the procedural path is clearly spelled out in their constitution. Maybe these dingle berry lawmakers can get it right next time.

That's the nature of democracy. Supposing the white vote was much less monolithic, as it was pre civil rights act, the non white vote would be too. One way or the other it would balance itself. Political parties need to survive either by adaptation or cease.

Well yeah sure but there was clearly 2024 non white support for GOP that surpassed 2020 level, just like there was in 2004 that helped Bush get reelected. That's fine - it happens...it's democracy. But you can't just say 2024 happened simply because of how white people voted.

Try putting the phone down for a few minutes to take a walk and get some nice fresh air. I promise it'll do ya wonders!

I mean are they stupid or something? They wasted peoples' time and money with a referendum after not following their own constitution. What could they do now? Aim for 2028 and pass it through the legislature the right way, then another referendum?

010

Virginia legislature didn't follow the state constitution when they put the referendum before the voters. There were procedural matters the legislature didn't follow. It's their fault not the court.

100

Thank you so much for the useful comment! Tired of reading the mindless knee-jerk hyperbole whenever something like this happens. Why did the legislature have such an oversight? Did they not have time for the two sessions?

120

This was the Virginia supreme court which is not majority GOP.

000