Hillary won the popular vote, so the “you’re too misogynistic to elect a woman” take does not have a basis in reality. Also, you might have noticed that AOC is filling football stadiums in red states just by being willing to speak.
Kamala lost because people got poorer for four years under Biden and she very publicly affirmed she’d change nothing about his policies. Hell, she didn’t even put a platform on her website until two weeks before the election. Kamala was a legitimately bad candidate.
The GOP didn’t update their platform since, like, 2015, unless you count Project 2025, which Trump claimed to know nothing about. In the 2020 election, it still referenced running against Obama.
Kamala lost because people got poorer for four years under Biden and she very publicly affirmed she’d change nothing about his policies.
Well I think the problem is people perceived others as getting poorer or worse off but the economy was humming just fine and unemployment reached record low numbers iirc.
Like, in general terms, people did not get poorer for four years under Biden - but if that’s what people think, regardless of the actual truth, that’s what they’ll act on.
Even worse, the perceived suffering was largely because inflations… caused by Trump’s Tariffs and indiscriminate covid spending (essentially supply side, handing out money to businesses big enough to handle the paperwork vs demand side)
Whatever is the easiest descriptor in context. Kamala has a unique first name in politics, “Harris” is not. Hillary differentiates her from Bill, however you definitely could use either if trump is in context.
Likely to do with how they tend to campaign, for some reason most tend to be more chummy and try to seem approachable then their male counterparts. (Its still bullshit, though)
This among many other reasons is why I want Kamala to leave the governorship of California well enough alone. I don’t want her coming here and applying her Republican pandering to the state.
She also had a lot of whispering in her ear about how to run a campaign, including from Joe Biden who still thinks he would have won. That’s also partly the reason she started stronger then diluted her platform.
If Hillary or Kamala had been men they would have won.
Hillary won the popular vote, so arguing for misogyny in her case isn’t a reasonable argument. As for Kamala, no. She’d have lost if she had a penis too. Her campaign was a comedy of errors and she knew it. She was even caught on hot mic once expressing worry about her campaign’s ability to connect with young men. (Admittedly a tough thing to accomplish when you tell people you won’t change anything and young men are struggling economically and lack access to basic necessities in your country.)
The only way the Dems had a shot here was to hold a primary and actually select a seasoned, authentic candidate. Instead, they rigged it like they always do and just happened to pick someone extremely weak.
The fact that she won the popular vote but lost the election proves my point. All the places she marginally lost in would very likely have swung to marginally won if she wasn’t a woman. The hate we see rampant today was rampant then too, it just hadn’t been given a voice or a face yet.
That’s how the Republicans won that election, they realized there was just enough hate in just the right places to swing it in their favor. They just had to fan the flames.
The fact that she won the popular vote but lost the election proves my point.
No, it really doesn’t.
That’s how the Republicans won that election, they realized there was just enough hate in just the right places to swing it in their favor.
Hillary just ignoring the Rust Belt during her campaign had nothing to do with it. Totally.
The lesson here isn’t that there’s too much hate in America. It’s that the Democrats really need to stop rigging primaries for weak candidates. Their focus needs to be on the economy and the poor, not propping up people’s egos.
I never said she was a great candidate, just that if she had been the same candidate, but male, those margins would have swung her way. Yes, even given the exact same campaign and mistakes.
I never said she was a great candidate, just that if she had been the same candidate, but male, those margins would have swung her way.
No. Absolutely not. That they had to rig a primary for her to even get the nomination in the first place demonstrates that your reasoning is incorrect.
The primaries are a private function run by the parties. The fact that there are laws regulating them doesn’t change the fact that they get to do basically whatever they want to select their candidates. The Dems absolutely deserve shit for it, but the cross section of the Dem party is not a snapshot of the country as a whole. I’ve never seen a study correlating performance in a primary to performance in the general, but I’d be fascinated to read one.
Or just break from the skeleton, call for an immediate end to the genocide of Palestinians, and keep calling the right-wingers weird, obsessive ghouls.
At least you don’t have a woman in office, huh America?
Hillary won the popular vote, so the “you’re too misogynistic to elect a woman” take does not have a basis in reality. Also, you might have noticed that AOC is filling football stadiums in red states just by being willing to speak.
Kamala lost because people got poorer for four years under Biden and she very publicly affirmed she’d change nothing about his policies. Hell, she didn’t even put a platform on her website until two weeks before the election. Kamala was a legitimately bad candidate.
The GOP didn’t update their platform since, like, 2015, unless you count Project 2025, which Trump claimed to know nothing about. In the 2020 election, it still referenced running against Obama.
Well I think the problem is people perceived others as getting poorer or worse off but the economy was humming just fine and unemployment reached record low numbers iirc.
Like, in general terms, people did not get poorer for four years under Biden - but if that’s what people think, regardless of the actual truth, that’s what they’ll act on.
Even worse, the perceived suffering was largely because inflations… caused by Trump’s Tariffs and indiscriminate covid spending (essentially supply side, handing out money to businesses big enough to handle the paperwork vs demand side)
Why is it that female candidates are addressed by first name?
Females like Bernie
Whatever is the easiest descriptor in context. Kamala has a unique first name in politics, “Harris” is not. Hillary differentiates her from Bill, however you definitely could use either if trump is in context.
Likely to do with how they tend to campaign, for some reason most tend to be more chummy and try to seem approachable then their male counterparts. (Its still bullshit, though)
This among many other reasons is why I want Kamala to leave the governorship of California well enough alone. I don’t want her coming here and applying her Republican pandering to the state.
Newsom is doing enough of that on his own.
She also had a lot of whispering in her ear about how to run a campaign, including from Joe Biden who still thinks he would have won. That’s also partly the reason she started stronger then diluted her platform.
If Hillary or Kamala had been men they would have won. If Kamala had been white I don’t think that would have been enough to get her elected.
But if Kamala had more than a hundred days to campaign, then she might have had a fair shot.
Hillary won the popular vote, so arguing for misogyny in her case isn’t a reasonable argument. As for Kamala, no. She’d have lost if she had a penis too. Her campaign was a comedy of errors and she knew it. She was even caught on hot mic once expressing worry about her campaign’s ability to connect with young men. (Admittedly a tough thing to accomplish when you tell people you won’t change anything and young men are struggling economically and lack access to basic necessities in your country.)
The only way the Dems had a shot here was to hold a primary and actually select a seasoned, authentic candidate. Instead, they rigged it like they always do and just happened to pick someone extremely weak.
The fact that she won the popular vote but lost the election proves my point. All the places she marginally lost in would very likely have swung to marginally won if she wasn’t a woman. The hate we see rampant today was rampant then too, it just hadn’t been given a voice or a face yet.
That’s how the Republicans won that election, they realized there was just enough hate in just the right places to swing it in their favor. They just had to fan the flames.
No, it really doesn’t.
Hillary just ignoring the Rust Belt during her campaign had nothing to do with it. Totally.
The lesson here isn’t that there’s too much hate in America. It’s that the Democrats really need to stop rigging primaries for weak candidates. Their focus needs to be on the economy and the poor, not propping up people’s egos.
I never said she was a great candidate, just that if she had been the same candidate, but male, those margins would have swung her way. Yes, even given the exact same campaign and mistakes.
No. Absolutely not. That they had to rig a primary for her to even get the nomination in the first place demonstrates that your reasoning is incorrect.
The primaries are a private function run by the parties. The fact that there are laws regulating them doesn’t change the fact that they get to do basically whatever they want to select their candidates. The Dems absolutely deserve shit for it, but the cross section of the Dem party is not a snapshot of the country as a whole. I’ve never seen a study correlating performance in a primary to performance in the general, but I’d be fascinated to read one.
Or just break from the skeleton, call for an immediate end to the genocide of Palestinians, and keep calling the right-wingers weird, obsessive ghouls.
She was a bad candidate in 2020, when she ran in the primary
She was, couldn’t even beat Tulsi Gabbard.