Summary: Hillary lost in 2016, and she blamed misogyny. If a woman is the Democratic Party nominee in 2020, she might lose too, and it might be because of misogyny. Therefore people might worry that the candidate shouldn't be a woman, because she might lose because of misogyny.
There's some evidence some people support Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren but worry that she can't win against Trump, and that translates to: "I’d vote for a woman for president, but I’m not sure my neighbor would."
So how is gender bias shaping the 2020 Democratic primary? The theory is that Democrats deciding which candidate to support consider electability and factor in the misogyny they think other people will bring to their decisionmaking.
I wonder if articles like "How gender bias is shaping the 2020 Democratic primary" are shaping the Democratic primary. What if the problem Harris and Warren are having is not so much that anyone is actually biased against them because they are women but that we've heard so much about bias against women that we're imagining the bias of other people and holding it against them?
But don't look for the wearisome flow of articles about gender bias to stop. And that's how you get more Biden. And Sanders. And Beto. And Buttigieg. It's the devious cycle of male supremacy! Detect it, talk about, and you'll help it work. Just a theory — skewed by weariness.
IN THE COMMENTS: John Henry writes:
I don't see why electability is an issue at all for the Demmies.I agree that Trump is on track to win, but that's a reason not to nominate a woman. If a woman is the candidate and she loses, then you have 2 female candidates in a row who lost. That will reinforce the belief that women are hard to elect. Pick a man, so when he loses, it will facilitate the rise of women in the future. And Sleepy gets his turn.
Unless something unforseeable happens, they seem to have no chance at all to beat PDJT in 2020.
They might as well go bold and make a statement.
Or, they can just figure it is Sleepy's turn and nominate him warts and all.
Posts
145 comments:
Just ask 2016 Bernie supporters about gender bias within the DNC.
A version of the article on Tiger Woods. (Link)
What don't women get to be President!!!
I wonder if Amber Phillips recognizes the underlying sexism in her own article.
Support who you want to be President. Stop worrying about whether or not your Neighbor will support them. Heck, you could talk to your neighbor and try to convince them of the greatness of your choice.
Thank you for reading so I don't have to.
Winning elections is a requirement imposed by the Patriarchy.
Democrats believe the people who used to sit out elections- Obama's minority voters, the barber shop black guys, the hispanic women, there's enough of them that won't vote for a woman. Democrats believe they need these voters to win. So it's real enough.
There is no one in this clown show - male, female, or indeterminate - who is big enough to fill the President's chair.
I'm a Trump voter, but I think Hillary is right on this issue. There is a degree of feeling that a male is more fit to be the leader.
Therefore people might worry that the candidate shouldn't be a woman, because she might lose because of misogyny.
Didn't Martin Short do this skit as Ed Grimley??
I don't see why electability is an issue at all for the Demmies.
Unless something unforseeable happens, they seem to have no chance at all to beat PDJT in 2020.
They might as well go bold and make a statement.
Or, they can just figure it is Sleepy's turn and nominate him warts and all.
John Henry
Does wearisome come before or after irritation - because I seem to be stuck in the irritated phase and am wondering if I skipped a phase; or if I have wearisome to look forward to.
Progs and Democrat party members hate people and think the worst about people because that makes them feel good about themselves in comparison to the inferior deplorables of their fever dreams.
Progs and Democrats are the good guys! Everyone else is Hitler!
This is why i think they WILL pick a woman (Kamela Harris, to be precise)
By next year, the dems will realize that they WON'T win; and will pick a woman SO they Can blame misogyny
"It's the devious cycle of male supremacy! Detect it, talk about, and you'll help it work. Just a theory"
I'll generalize the theory.
Face it: anything women say or do reinforces the patriarchy.
There is a degree of feeling that a male is more fit to be the leader.
Well, it's true.
The president should be a man.
There's no good reason for a woman to be president. Achieving firsts so that everything seems equal in an abstract sense to Marxist eggheads is bullshit irrelevance.
Misogyny and sexism are fabricated Marxist concepts. What Althouse means when she uses these terms is: "rejection of Marxist feminism." In other words, common sense and moral decency.
The woman might actually have to be good. It's doubtful they can find one. She'd more likely be a republican. The democrat women are losers.
Most of the D-women are not likeable. Show me a likable candidate first.
The democrat party has twisted itself into a male hating party. Specifically - a white-male hating party. The party of hate. When they prop up a female who wants to abolish Immigration and Customs enforcement (hey why not abolish police and firefighters too! they are all KKK! right?) - the left fail to grasp that their own outrageous and dangerous behavior is a turn-off to the silent majority. A turn off to ordinary Americans who, like Ann notes, just want to feel protected, not scammed. Kamala appeals to the most angry base. She must appeal to Antifa, for instance. & No matter how much the hack press deliver the "news" as propaganda for their chosen party/candidate, the rest of us are listening and shaking our heads at the horror show.
I - and I think a vast majority of people for that matter - are getting REALLY TIRED of this 'first' crap....
Being 'first something' is absolutely positively the last consideration for just about anything.
If they pick Jo Biden, and he loses; what does that prove? one old white guy is better than other?
If they pick Mrs. Buttigieg, and he loses; whats that prove? People don't want an incompetent young white gay?
If they pick Beta O'Rourke, and he loses; whats that prove? People don't want a meth-head?
The only thing that would give the dems something to whine and moan about is if a WOMAN Loses
Get away from the air conditioned nightmare world of the corporate law firm and law schools and how many women really give a shit about Althouse's feminist obsessions?
I'd guess less than 5%.
Outside Althouse's world, every woman I know wants to be a school teacher or a nurse, or has no substantial career aspirations and just wants a part time job when the kids are young and a full time job when they are in school full time.
Harris and Warren, in particular, have shown just how unpleasant they are in person. Harris should keep her questions to a minimum in those Senate hearings.
It can't possibly be that Hillary was a dislikable candidate from the beginning and then ran a bad campaign that literally ignored critical states. Nope, it has to be because she was a woman. The only truth is that it should have been her campaign to lose, rather than Trump's ability to win. However, Trump won, and now has been delivering what he could previously only promise. Now, when a Democrat loses in 2020; it should be because they didn't offer a better candidate.
A modern Maggie Thatcher would do the trick, but the collective left would slime, distort, lynch, and destroy her.
This isn't about gender.
There are a lot of powerful people in DC and NYC who's highest priority right now is surviving a failed coup attempt which was motivated in the first place by a need to hide previous crimes.
They are pushing Biden because they see him as their best option for staying out of jail and even regaining power because he's one of them.
It will be tougher for Trump to investigate the previous administration when Biden is his opponent. Dems will scream Trump is using Justice and the FBI for political reasons like a third world dictator.
People who write for a living need to write.
Oh, please.
Hillary did not lose because she’s a woman.
Hillary lost because she’s a lousy person, she was a lousy candidate, and she ran a lousy campaign.
Plus Trump was a fighter. Who could have predicted that—a candidate who would actually act like he wanted to win?
Can we please, please, please just get past looking at everything through the lenses of sex, skin tone, whatever, and just see people?
I'd vote for Nikki Haley for President, and I'm sure there are a lot of others who would too. I WON'T vote for a Democrat Woman EVER again, because the Democrats are WAY TOO FAR to the left, and are only about identity politics anymore. I got called a racist too many times for not agreeing with Obama enough to know I would become a "woman hater" if I disagreed with a Democrat woman.
Don't they have any good woman governors?
These senators really are worthless.
>>"What if the problem Harris and Warren are having is not so much that anyone is actually biased against them because they are women but that we've heard so much about bias against women that we're imagining the bias of other people and holding it against them?"<<
What if Harris is a manifestly nasty bitch who appeals to few and Warren is a silly loon that most consider a joke and we're therefore imagining neither one of them has any business sitting in the Oval Office and holding it against them?
Simple, just call it misogyny and forge ahead.
The major party nominee always has a chance. 2016 anyone?
Two defeated D women will set the foundation for Nikki Haley 2024.
The problem with the Democratic women isn't that they are women, it is that they are tone deaf, and terrible politicians.
Rice/Haley 2024? I'd knock on doors for that.
I see a lot of this dynamic, in many situations. You postulate some unfalsifiable thing, and then cite lack of disproof as proof. It's part of the epistemically closure process.
Slow Joe is the only hope, however small, that the D's have.
Enough about American women. What's the name of Harry's boy?
Hell, people have even quit or cut back giving money to Crazy Bernie.
Female Democratic candidates will continue bang on the glass ceiling and may ever create some cracks. However, I believe the first woman to actually break through the glass ceiling will be a Republican. A Republican woman will win on merit. A Democratic woman may work hard, but will expect entitlement to carry them the final mile.
Don’t just pick a woman, but a woman of color.
Then when she inevitably loses, you PROVE America is both sexist and racist.
After that you just argue the entire system of elections must be overturned.
That’s what people like Biden mean when they say “democracy is at stake” in this election.
If the Dems don’t win, they’re going to have to get rid of democracy.
The biggest fallacy and idiocy of the Democrats' reasoning is to think that they "should" , they MUST nominate a woman because it is "her" turn or just because she is a woman.
Nevermind actual accomplishments, qualifications, competency. Nope. It is all about the vagina.
And if you don't vote for the woman, you are a terrible person who hates women. Not a winning message.
Look, the Democrat party is way, way, way too focused on the ephemeral and the stupid. Why vote for a woman? I mean, what is it about a woman that makes me want to vote for her over a man? For that matter, why vote for a man?
I want to vote for a candidate who meets the right qualifications. Ticking off a variety of external checkboxes is stupid. I want someone who will keep government under control--what does it matter if it's a guy or gal? Maggie Thatcher would be wonderful. I'd vote for her in a heartbeat over Biden or Beto or Kamala. But not because she's a she, but because she was a conservative.
I once thought Condaleeza Rice would make a good candidate, but she turned out to be a huge Squish. Nikki Haley--she caved on the confederate statute thing, which is worrisome. The Democrat women? Take them, please! They are all shrill harridans who think communism sounds wonderful. They all aim to be the last President.... as in, they will destroy our country and turn it into a dictatorship. To be fair, their men want the same thing.
Hillary lost because her greed and the expectation that she was OWED, came back to bite her in the ass. Karma, bitch.
That won't stop LLR Chuck and the obnoxious toxic left on their march to the Russian-style "popular vote" that says the largest states in the union get to pick. and FU>
Gender bias isn't a problem, and is intentional deceptive.
There's a ton of great women political figures: Sandra Day O'Connor, Condaleeza Rice, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Sarah Palin, Joni Ernst, Martha McSally, et al.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was the Queen Bee. A truly top-notch inspirational leader.
So, no, there is no "Gender-Bias". However, there is a "bias" against shrill, greedy, Leftwing, grifters who happen to be female (cough, Hillary, cough, cough). That "bias" is called the opposition.
One final point - if there is a gender bias in the Democrat Party against female candidates, Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, Gabbard, Klobuchar, well, why are the Democrats so sexist?
Obama didn't need to elevate Hillary to Secretary of Frequent Flier Miles with a Private Server for Personal Income Stream.
But he did.
Shame on him.
The media knew Hillary was unlikable, but it was her turn and how could America be duped into the Orange Man who was talking about ordinary Americans in his speeches. oh the agony. So many misogynists!
I’d vote for Tulsi Gabbard.
It's difficult to imagine Harris, Warren and Hillary as president because they campaign as if they are running for Queen
The first step to getting "misogynists" to vote for a woman is to run a woman who shares their policy preferences (or, just like male candidates, will convincingly pretend to). So, no Dem women.
Run a proven competent and truth speaking realist and the genitalia and skin color will become irrelevant. Or run an identity politician spewing delusions as if the world will end if a Communist Tyranny doesn't saves us. Those are the only two choices Trump's magnificent communication skills has left the mentally ill Dems.
I'd vote for Nikki Haley for President, and I'm sure there are a lot of others who would too.
Me Me Me!
I watched a documentary last night that featured a brief montage of scenes from feminist demonstrations in NYC in the 70s.
"Tens of thousands of women demonstrate!" the announcer said.
Those demonstrations attracted tens of tens. Read Sultan Knish's backlog of posts and you'll find that the presentation of feminism as a mass political movement was as phony as the Russia collusion hoax, perpetrated by the same media.
Ambitious Marxist writers needed a product to hump.
It’s the Curse of Sarah Palin. She was the first very popular (and hated) female candidate.
Hillary had the hate but not the popularity of Palin.
You’d have to have a Klobuchar candidate — Dull. Neither lived nor hated, to succeed.
Kamala and Warren have the hate but not the popularity.
Trump and Obama have both. So did Bill Clinton.
This doesn’t work for a woman because of Sarah Palin.
Except .. if a D man wins in the end, that is lousy strategic advice: don't compete yet girls, you might lose two in a row...
How Boomer women were trsined to think .. risk-averse sidelined cheers. Pick a winner, girls!
The democrats ( as usual ) are projecting their own bigotry and race baiting into the electorate. Since they only care about wed and race they continue to insist others do as well. It’s bullshit. How do they explain BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA twice? They don’t, they just pivot to the next bigotry item. Very destructive people.
I'm not aware of any studies, but common sense tells me Hillary! got far more votes because she's a woman than she lost because she's a woman. But no one ever talks about that side of the ledger.
Prof., I think you're right in your strategizing in that the first woman president has at least some extra baggage--if she is a failure, it will not just be a failure for her, but also for women. So if Democrats are going to lose this round, they should focus on concerns other than winning. Give Joe his shot and then, finally, be done with him.
I keep forgetting — can women vote? And are there more women or men?
There is a feeling that a male , in abstract and in general, is more fit to be a leader because they have predominantly been that way. Until a competent, tough woman comes along who is whining like a princess that people are against her because she is a woman. Do they think it’s a participation award? It’s tough, rough life and death stuff, pussies need not apply.
"How do they explain BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA twice?"
Obama is proof of misogyny, of course.
Tulsi G isn't completely toxic. Why won't the collective left elevate her? You know why - occasionally she wanders off the leftwing thought-police ethos. Not tolerated!
"Pick a man, so when he loses, it will facilitate the rise of women in the future."
Yeah, but that deprives women of endless opportunity to whine endlessly. Between that and a future rise, the choice is easy.
Nikki Haley would be an very strong candidate. That's a guess at this point, as she hasn't yet thrown her hat in the field. But I believe she would be formidable, if she doesn't stay in private life for too many years.
I don't know if there is gender bias or not in the primary D field. They don't appear to be particularly strong candidates. Some reporters claim Warren is charismatic on the stump. But I don't judge any of the D women candidates to be as formidable as Nikki Haley would be in the field.
Maybe, just maybe, people should vote for the platform and the candidate qualities than the demographic. This might be hard for dems to understand, since they get so caught up in narrative. Althouse seems to have a bias toward a person's story rather than their qualifications considering how she seems highlight a person's orientation, color or other irrelevant factors that do not determine a candidate's actual potential effectiveness at the job being applied for. I don't care what color a person is, what gender, what race, or any other "interesting" thing about their background. I want to to know what they are going to do as the most powerful executive in the world. I shake my head in disbelief at every puff piece written about the democrat candidates that talk about their "special" demographic qualities. This isn't an episode of the Bachelorette, for goodness sake. And if people ARE voting for a candidate based on anything other than job performance potential, then early critics of democracy were absolutely spot on. If any of your top 50 criteria for whether to vote for a candidate includes race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. then you should stay home.
Tulsi G isn't completely toxic. Why won't the collective left elevate her? You know why - occasionally she wanders off the leftwing thought-police ethos. Not tolerated!
Tulsi was my dark horse for a long time. I still think that she may be in the running for VP. She'd play well with the Midwest: young, attractive, a veteran.
After all this noise about the Dem primary is concluded,
there is one inescapable historical truth:
When a President runs for re-election, it's always a referendum on his job performance. Always. It's NEVER a choice between the incumbent and the challenger.
If the voters aren't really dissatisfied with the incumbent, they'll vote to keep him even if the challenger seems better.
If the voters are really dissatisfied with the incumbent, they'll kick him out even if they have doubts about the challenger.
Hence I'm not even paying attention to the Dem primary process. I'm just watching ONE datum: Trump's approval rating.
If Trump's approval rating drops below 45% as the election approaches, Bernie Sanders or any Democrat could beat him.
If Trump's approval rating stays somewhere around 47-50%, no Democrat will be able to beat him.
"I’d vote for a woman for president, but I’m not sure my neighbor would."
As a misanthropologist I feel bad enough about voting for humans.
whichever clown gets nominated can just self declare as a woman if they win. If they lose they can self declare as a man.
Problem solved.
Just like Bill Clinton,our first black POTUS.
And thus the path of intersectional identity politics inevitably leads.
One more thing.
Tracking the incumbent's approval rating was why I knew in 2012 that Romney (or any other Republican) couldn't possibly beat Obama.
As the summer came to an end and the election approached, Obama's approval rating hovered at around 49-50% (with the libertarian candidate, Johnson, getting 1%).
That was a sure-fire indicator that Obama was going to win re-election no matter what the GOP challenger said or did.
Translation from gobbledly gook: Democrats can't think for themselves, they need to know what their peers are doing before making a decision.
But they've also put themselves in a bind - nominating an old, white man will alienate a large chunk of the party. But they don't believe a woman will win. (I mean, Hillary didn't and she's a woman!)
@Mr. Wibble, there is something wrong with Hawaii that Mazie Hirono is a senator and Tulsi Gabbard is not. Heck, Hirono needs a Michigan graduate to teach her how to spell "maize."
Bay Area Guy nails it. Democrat identity politics women can't win, so they blame misogyny. But if a Republican woman, say, Ivanka Trump, won, she wouldn't be a "Real Woman", so wouldn't count. Just like Clarence Thomas doesn't count as a Black man on the SCOTUS.
sinz52 said...
If Trump's approval rating drops below 45% as the election approaches, Bernie Sanders or any Democrat could beat him.
How would anyone know if Trump's approval rating ever goes down to 45%? Certainly not by any poll of 2,000 people. Polls are notoriously inaccurate.
Oh, and my odds are up to 60/40 that Hillary will run again. She'll announce late, to avoid having to face other Dem candidates.
Democrat women need to come to grips with their treatment of conservative women if they ever expect to see one of their own elected. There is no sense in appealing to solidarity of the sisterhood with something like Madeline Albright's "special place in Hell," if Democrat women are not themselves prepared to support Republican women for office.
"Maybe, just maybe, people should vote for the platform and the candidate qualities than the demographic. This might be hard for dems to understand, since they get so caught up in narrative. Althouse seems to have a bias toward a person's story"
Sorry. Platform is as irrelevant as story. You get the team and the party and basic progressivism regardless. Gabbard may have the most reasonable platform and the most charming story but she'd be a Dem tool. Mayor Pete may have the most beautiful family picture published, but he is your 21st-century lefty. And so on and so forth.
Bernie is a bit different since he is no Dem and a genuine socialist--he may go hard left against the Dem establishment.
Biden is a bit different since he does not actively hate America. Whether even that difference makes a difference is in doubt.
Trump was the exception--infiltrating a party and running against it, winning but at great cost.
If the Democrats nominate a woman, and she loses, then Hillary will have company up in the attic where we keep madwomen. The two of them could commiserate about how they wuz robbed, although I could imagine Hillary saying "Beat it, sister. I'm working this side of the street."
AllenS: "How would anyone know if Trump's approval rating ever goes down to 45%? Certainly not by any poll of 2,000 people. Polls are notoriously inaccurate."
They're not inaccurate in this case.
Going all the way back to Harry Truman, every time that Gallup's approval rating tracker showed the incumbent as having at least 48% approval in the weeks before the election, the incumbent won re-election. Every time the incumbent's approval rating dropped below 45%, the incumbent lost his bid for re-election.
https://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx?g_source=link_newsv9&g_campaign=item_245606&g_medium=copy
It's been a perfect predictor since the end of World War II.
Women aren't hard to elect.
Neo-Communist authoritarians are hard to elect. But, blaming sexism is much easier than admitting your political positions are extremist.
I wonder if there's a Texan phrase to address this.
Something like "Keep your powder dry"..
Nobody has a bias against women in politics.
We just don't like leftist airheads, and some women politicians are leftist airheads.
If Mazie Hirono were intelligent, understood the Constitution and was nice to our Attorney General Barr, Yes, I'd like her.
But she isn't, so I don't.
Undoubtedly there are some people (both men and women) who will not vote for a woman as POTUS, but far more will vote for a woman simply becuase she is one and nothing else. Like racism, sexism works both ways.
sinz52,
I agree with your analysis. But I don't look at the national ratings, I look at the rating in battleground states and the electorate demos & past turn out rates. Not much else concerns me when predicting the general.
I don’t support Harris or Warren for a very specific reason - I think they’re both authoritarians with strong socialist tendencies. I don’t support Bernie for roughly the same reason in reverse - he’s more a socialist with authoritarian tendencies.
Biden is a different animal. Why would I vote for a less effective version of Trump? Blowhard? Check. Creepy toward women? Check. Family with shady business deals? Check. Poor hair choices? Check. Tendency to say things that are not remotely related to the truth? Check. Trump is all those things but he’s also making extremely wise choices regarding the economy. So, I’ll take Trump, if I have to choose today, because to pick otherwise seems to be economic suicide.
If these people want to identify themselves as women (that's sexist), they would be expected to behave as such. Now, who would want to get sexy with any of them? Frankly, I'd rather have The Donald up my asd.
When Nikki Haley runs in 2024, she'll immediately be the front runner.
Democracy Dies in Darkness!
I would like nothing more than for a woman or a minority to win the Presidency if they wer going to push the right policies. That would be a fantastic bonus, but policy and temperament are what matters. The best thing of all would be if Trump won and then self-identified as a black lesbian the next day. That would be grand slam.
To be fair, the male Democrat contenders are pretty much chicks, too.
I am Laslo.
libertariansafetyguy said: "Biden is a different animal. Why would I vote for a less effective version of Trump?"
Have you ever voted for a Democrat before?
If not, then the presidential election isn't about you. It's about the less ideological swing voters.
For a few last years, complaining, gossiping, and smirking about Trump was the only qualification to be a Democrat. Such situation does not bring forward great candidates, but not because all Democrats are dumb, but because they have not done other useful things, and therefore those "political muscles" have degraded in a major way.
An analogy would be athletes from one country, bitching for 4 years, with bags of chips, and beer in their hands about a competitor who won last Olympics. Then we have next Olympics and what do we think will happen? They have not trained at all those 4 years.
How about Sarah Palin!
She is rested and ready. She would make one Hell of a president. She would most likely be a female version of PDJT.
I know, I know, she's a Republican.
But if Bernie Sanders can pretend to be a democrat, why not Gov Palin?
If Elizabeth Warren can pretend to be an indian, why can't Gov Palin pretend to be a demmie?
If Robbie O'Rourke can pretend to be a Mexican, why can't Gov Palin pretend to be a demmie?
If Corey Booker can pretend to be heterosexual, why can't Gov Palin pretend to be a demmie?
If Kamala Harris can pretend to be an African-American, why can't Gov Palin pretend to be a demmie?
If Sleepy can pretend to be a decent human being, why can't Gov Palin pretend to be a demmie?
Personally though, I would rather have Gov Palin wait 4 years and be elected Pres in 2024 and continue the Trump program. He can have a magic wand passing ceremony at the inauguration.
John Henry
Hillary called all of Bill's sexual harassment accusers "Bimbos and sluts" and went to great lengths to harass them some more.
Sisterhood(D), bitches.
"I don't see why electability is an issue at all for the Demmies. Unless something unforseeable happens, they seem to have no chance at all to beat PDJT in 2020."
Huh. I would have said, Unless something unforeseeable happens, they have no chance at all of losing to Trump in 2020. If the Mueller investigation ending didn't bump his poll numbers, nothing in this world could. Every single human being in this country is already locked into one of the Two Movies, and nothing will shift them. There are no Undecideds left.
"They might as well go bold..." I hope they don't, but this is true. It literally makes no difference at all who they nominate, so they would be smart to nominate the one they actually want.
It would be interesting to watch a movie about the two movies. Halfway through, Darth Vader begins spending his time helping out at soup kitchens, Luke Skywalker begins massacring other Jedis and innocent planets. Everyone already loves Luke anyhow, and Vader is beyond redemption.
It's been a perfect predictor since the end of World War II.
The ;problem with polls these days is the "Bradley Effect" that is seen with Trump voters. They are heaped with abuse by the left and then Democrats (the left these days) wonder why Hillary was not elected.
I have no idea if Trump will be re-elected. I hope so but consider polls in these circumstances, which resemble late Soviet Russia, to be unreliable. Too many people see MAGA hats torn off people and Trump supporters attacked. The Covington kids is a great example.
Ann said, "If a woman is the candidate and she loses, then you have 2 female candidates in a row who lost."
A man has lost every Presidential election since the late 1700s, except for 2016.
Dems are "all in" for misogyny.
Blogger sinz52 said...
If Trump's approval rating drops below 45% as the election approaches, Bernie Sanders or any Democrat could beat him.
What was Obama's approval rating in July 2012? (I'm too lazy to Bing it)
One of the things that doesn't get near enough play in the media (I can't imagine why) is Obama's approval vs PDJT's approval at the same point in their presidencies.
PDJT has almost always beaten Obama.
John Henry
So in other words, women aren't strong enough to be able to handle two defeats in a row.
I dunno, maybe it's just 21st Century womyn. Compare: Thatcher vs. May? Golda vs. Merkle? I don't know of any non-Fredocon/LLR Conservative who wouldn't jump at the chance to make an ideological Thatcher-like woman President.
A man has lost every Presidential election since the late 1700s, except for 2016.
Brilliant, and stolen.
First female president will be a Republican. Ivanka.
If the Mueller investigation ending didn't bump his poll numbers, nothing in this world could. Every single human being in this country is already locked into one of the Two Movies, and nothing will shift them.
Today's Gallop poll
Barack Obama’s job-approval rating was 44 percent in Gallup polling at the same point in his presidency (April 2011), and he still managed to find a way to win re-election in 2012.
If there wasn't a strong hypocritical misogynist stench in the Democrat Party, otherwise all the men running for the nomination would drop out or go tranny.
Misogyny didn't sink Hillary, the fact that she is a grifting toad is.
If Trump's approval ratings with blacks and Hispanics continue to increase, even slightly, that will likely assure his re-election. A 10% shift in approval towards Trump by blacks is close to 5M, close to 6M for Hispanics. If just half of those are voters, it would make it pretty much impossible for a Democrat to win.
FWIW, Mark Jones, I will attribute the quote to you. And I'm sending a link to your blog for our son who writes.
Hillary only got nominated because she was a woman. Specifically, Mrs. Bill Clinton. Her record as NY Senator and Sec of state was mediocre in the extreme. Her political skills are below average.
No man with her record would've gotten anywhere NEAR the POTUS nomination.
The woman running for POTUS are extremely mediocre. But then so are the men. Warren and Kobalochar should just drop out and support Harris. She's the only woman who can be nominated.
I always thought Diane Fienstein should have run for POTUS, but she was too old and liberal in 2000 and 2008.
It will undoubtedly work to women's advantage to be protected from tough races. Maybe they could try not being such extremists?
Nah, better to advance AOC and claim criticism of her is misogynist. If Hillary showed us anything it's that this tactic works.
AA - wait, doesn't Hillary and her Democrat acolytes always point out that she won (the popular vote) which dispels the B.S. misogyny meme? Unless, you are now wanting us to believe that even the Electoral College is biased. Truly unbelievable the garbage the Democrats keep pushing. Nominate a real woman not such damaged goods like Harris and Warren - or those no one (a common person in the USAS) has ever heard of - Gillibrand, Gabbard, Klobuchar, Hassan, Duckworth, etc. Hell, the Democrats, at last count, have 11 women running. You call that misogyny???? As the great fictional movie swordsman ,"Inigo Montoya" says - “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” i
Anyone who thinks Blacks are going to vote for Trump are crazy. Republicans NEVER give up on that pipe dream.
I was reading George Bush's autobiography, and he makes the ridiculous statement that he wasn't racist because he got more Black votes then any other Republican Texas Governor in history. He was very proud of it. So I looked it up. Bush got 15% of the Texas Black vote in 1994, 27% in 1998. IOW, 73% of blacks voted AGAINST Bush, when he won the state with 65%. And later when he ran for POTUS all that "Black Support" disappeared. He got 10-15% of the Black vote in 2000, and 10-15% of the Black vote in 2004.
Mark Jones comes in late and wins the thread by a mile.
Without swerving.
THe most hilarious reaction after Trump's win was Liberals talking about how they had to explain to their daughters that a woman couldn't be POTUS in AmeriKKKa. Strangely, NONE of them had that reaction when Palin lost in 2008. Guess their daughters being VP wasn't that important. Yep.
11 Women are running and only 1 has a chance. Harris. The rest are kooks or nonentities. Is the Democrat establishment trying to fix the nomination for Biden by encouraging all these people to run and flooding the zone? Having all these people running, makes it harder for the real candidates: Bernie, Harris, and Booker to challenge Biden. They'll be lost in all the noise.
If haven't been a Senator or Governor - stop wasting everyone's time. The D's aren't going to nominate a mayor or congressman.
Like racism, when liberals and the media tell me misogyny is a huge problem in America, I'm inclined to think it's barely even exists.
Democrats are so diverse. They think feminine, but elect the male, and hound the females of the wrong color. #HateLovesAbortion
When the R's run a woman, it will be for competency
If the D's run one, it will be for some other reason.
Sex and gender in politics.
If the D's run [woman], it will be for some other reason.
Casting couch politics. They don't actually like feminine females, but will use them as props and for target practice to progress their fortunes.
Laslo, this headline is for you: Ponytail girl protects Biden.
Just wait till Booker comes up with a composite replacement character for T-Bone.
Not a chance in hell I'd vote for Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren. And it's not because of misogyny. I would vote for Sarah Palin- and the people who would vote for Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren reading this just recoiled in horror....
Are there any female leftmedia journalists who write anything other than anti-Trump calumny or bedwetting rants about disadvantaged women? Wow! “I am woman hear me whine!”
Was Hillary an admirable candidate? How about any of the current Democrat women candidates? Maybe Tulsi or Amy. The jury is still out. The other three? Get serious.
Mark Jones said...
Ann said, "If a woman is the candidate and she loses, then you have 2 female candidates in a row who lost."
A man has lost every Presidential election since the late 1700s, except for 2016.
Including 2016. Gary Johnson (Libertarian), Darrell Lane Castle (Constitution Party), Rocky De La Fuente (Reform Party), Evan McMullin (Independent) also lost.
Along with another woman Gloria Estela La Riva (Party for Socialism and Liberation).
And the following losing candidates received votes that really counted- electoral votes: Colin Powell 3 (WA), John Kasich 1 (TX), Ron Paul 1 (TX), Bernie Sanders 1 (HI), Faith Spotted Eagle 1 (WA). I can't tell you off the top of my head whether Faith Spotted EAgle is male, female, or other, and I'm not interested enough to look it up.
And I can assure you- Hillary Clinton wasn't the first female to lose, although arguments can be made she deserved to lose more than any of the others did.
rcocean said...
If haven't been a Senator or Governor - stop wasting everyone's time. The D's aren't going to nominate a mayor or congressman.
Or an experienced businessperson who's never run for office before.
These kind of articles are depressing, first because they damage they do is self-inflicted. Second because they are self-perpetuating.
If you want to run, run! If you want to support a candidate, support that candidate! Stop trying to guess what is other peoples' heads.
sinz52 says, "If not, then the presidential election isn't about you. It's about the less ideological swing voters."
Agree 100%. The election next election will be about swing voters, non-voters in 2016, and those who voted 3rd party. To vote or not to vote, that is the question. The approval ratings in swing states is not obvious. Trump was underwater in many swing states going into the vote. But he won states like Wisconsin due to non-voting, those who voted 3rd party, and the undecided swing voters. Result: the approval rating going into the vote was not determinative of the winner in swing states.
But if one factors in a correct estimate of the swings, 3rd party vote & non voters, approval ratings should be helpful in predictions.
Republican Beats Woman
is even to campaignagainst a woman (for R's) Warring On Women?
My life is good, even charmed!
Want to know how I know this? I was reading Althouse this morning, and as I started throught the comments, I saw several instances of this beautiful phrase:
Comment by Chuck blocked
Ahhhhhh........
I suggest more of you invest in downloading and installing the KillFile addon.
(For even more happiness, sometimes I get a twofer, as when Ch*ck and Fr*d*r are have successive comments that are blocked.)
"There is a degree of feeling that a male is more fit to be the leader."
Nice try, but not quite. There is, rather, a degree of true perception of reality that this particular females are not fit to lead. Hopefully those same perceptors perceive that Chairman Bernie and Sniffer Joe are just as unfit.
robother,
Dont forget Kay Bailey Hutchison, the "female impersonator".
The problem that I see with women candidates for any leadership position is the "get along" tendency they possess because of a testosterone deficiency.
For example, Amy Klobuchar operated as a moderate during her political career, staying clear of the insane left's idiotic issues of the overheating of the earth (which is in God' s purview), more socialism, more tolerance of non-Christian religions, free healthcare and open borders for all. Suddenly Klobuchar declares that progressivism is the only plane to fly and land.
My point is that you have to have an ingrained position that will be defended always. Progressives know that but do not believe in "all or nothing." Moderate fence sitters are not believable and none of the feminine candidates arise to take a convincing position with passion. It's all about the male hormone, sweetie - because you cannot win at poker without bluffing.
Interestingly, Trump is a bonafide bluffer - because he doesn't believe in anything except Donald Trump's egotistical happiness.
You Were doing pretty well there, gaddie, until you tried to analyze Trump.
Trump is the guy who has made his money and his reputation and is comfortable in his own skin, then decides to try to fix the dysfunctional government. So far he has done pretty well in spite of hysterical opposition. He didn't get the border fixed or Obamacare repealed because the GOPe lied about wanting to do so. All they cared about was the tax cut then they were ready to go home until the next election.
Dear Ms. AA:
You need a "I will read it so you don't have to" tag
thanks
anon
Biden needs the nomination to save women from the shame of another Trump term.
Harris, Warren, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand run like girls.
It’s a dilemma for the patriarchy. They could arrange for a woman to win the Democratic nomination so she could lose to Trump and thereby undermine future woman candidates for perhaps 32 years (think what the old Wasp patriarchy did to Catholics with Al Smith). But what if she wins? The patriarchy may not want to take that chance.
What if the problem Harris and Warren are having is not so much that anyone is actually biased against them because they are women but that we've heard so much about bias against women that we're imagining the bias of other people and holding it against them?
Or it could be—quelle horreur—that Harris, Warren, and Clinton are lousy candidates.
"I agree that Trump is on track to win, but that's a reason not to nominate a woman. If a woman is the candidate and she loses, then you have 2 female candidates in a row who lost. That will reinforce the belief that women are hard to elect. Pick a man, so when he loses, it will facilitate the rise of women in the future. And Sleepy gets his turn."
NO, if your goal is to stoke the flames of victimhood ever higher, to the advantage of the Democratic Party! In that case, which seems to be the dominant thinking at the NYT and many other MSM places, you nominate a woman whom you can claim is "moderate," which means there is someone to her left, she loses, and you blame all those evil misogynists who are not Democrats, and make the argument that moving to the Center is pointless in the face of such hatred.
Apart from "Russian Collusion," that has been the main line of attack on Trump since election night 2016, and has had some success; it takes no great prescience to think they would repeat it.
sinz52, don't try to sucker us with biased polls. Trump's favorable to unfavorable rating was 35% to 61% unfavorable 2 weeks before the 2016 election.
Real Clear Politics
Men can't stand listening to women who talk like women. I don't know why. Hillary, while heavily-experienced in DC politics - almost in Pelosi's class - has a voice that drives men mad. This is an unfair knock on women, but an accurate analysis.
I'm waiting for a social scientist to explain how gender bias affects the universe on a quantum level.
"Gender bias" is a revered trope. And I am a perennial misantrope.
Men can't stand listening to women who talk like women. I don't know why. Hillary, while heavily-experienced in DC politics - almost in Pelosi's class - has a voice that drives men mad
Hillary doesn't talk like any woman I know. Maybe i've been lucky.
Women ARE hard to elect.
I'm liberty biased. I don't vote for anyone higher than a five on the Statist Scale.
As stated before: I would vote for a Palin, a Rice, or a Haley.
Give me a semi presentable woman who is not a man hating whackadoodle with stupid socialist ideas. Heck, if she were a Republican, I would even vote for a Gabbard.*
None of these are anything like candidates who can solve what America feels are its serious problems. Guess what? It isn't free education. It is further south...
*It is not that SHE is the issue. She would be forced to support the man hating whackadoodle ideas of the present Democratic party.
"...but that's a reason not to nominate a woman. If a woman is the candidate and she loses, then you have 2 female candidates in a row who lost. That will reinforce the belief that women are hard to elect. Pick a man, so when he loses, it will facilitate the rise of women in the future.
Translation: Let me single handedly reinforce the risk adverse stereotype for women which many feel is disqualifying for them to be world leaders in a high stakes, high risk environment.
Did ANYONE think that Trump had as good a shot at winning as an Elizabeth Warren back in 2015? He was a JOKE.
And yet HE tried. But the women can't be asked to take such a risk.
Pathetic.
But misogyny is a great excuse for why one lost without having the trouble of actually having to be self reflective.
These are lousy female candidates. I mean...REALLY lousy and significantly outside the mainstream of American society.
But it would require Crewl Newtrality™ to actually admit something like this.
Which is why Former Whore an Empress Theodora of the Byzantine Empire was, and likely will be one of the Greatest Women of all time, certainly better than this sorry lot.
She faced rioting squads of Greens wanting to rip her and her husband apart and yet, instead of fleeing, she said 'The Purple is a suitable shroud.'
THAT is a female leader! Not Fauxahauntas or Harris. (Granted, like Harris, she slept her way to the top, but she gets mad props just the same)
Show me a Dem who can take a hit without playing the victim and I'll show you the winner of the 2020 election.
I have no idea why anyone minimally educated in math pays any attention to the “RCP average”. If you average a bunch of crap, you still get crap.
FIDO,
"It is not that SHE is the issue. She would be forced to support the man hating whackadoodle ideas of the present Democratic party"
The heck she isn't--after all, she freely chose to run as a Democrat and thus associate herself with those whackadoodle idea-carriers. What more evidence do you need of disqualifyingly-bad judgement???
Post a Comment