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.
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.