I'm a little more skeptical/optimistic. I think Clinton and Harris each had their own bad hands to play that hurt them more than their gender but I would agree sexism is a political force/headwind.
I think the Harris campaign had divisive ads that really emboldened the male voters to vote for Trump in a way that the Clinton campaign didn't back in 2016.
Putting out an ad where women decide to secretly vote for Harris and don't tell their own husbands about it was one of the dumbest decisions any presidential campaign has ever made. I can see why men thought this was sexist.
I feel the opposite Clinton campaign made gender a front and center issue "I'm with her" where as Kamala attempted to downplay it regardless of whatever superpac came up with that ad you referenced.
тАЬIтАЩm With HerтАЭ also doesnтАЩt take into account the fact that not all women were Clinton supporters or even warming up to her. This wasnтАЩt just with women Trump supporters but certain women Bernie Sanders supporters on the far liberal side. After Bernie lost the Democratic Presidential Nomination, these voters were more inclined to voting Green and felt Jill Stein as a Green Party Presidential Candidate back in 2016 spoke about the social justice issues better for them.
That said, since Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election there have been quite a number of women Democrats being elected to office in the House, Senate and other statewide offices who have emerged as stronger and smarter in their political campaigns than what Clinton did with herтАЩs.
Don't forget that Clinton won the popular vote by over 5,000,000 votes. She "lost" only in the anti-democratic U.S. system, and with various extenuating circumstances we all know about.
I'm going to exercise caution with this as Trump was taking the steam away from the 2016 and 2024 presidential races.
A woman presidential candidate might be effective if she were a uniting figure like Barack Obama was in 2008 as long as she would bridge the divide between the polarizing sides.
Remember the circumstances under which the first Black presidential candidate won in the U.S. Trump is popular with a lot of idiots, but he brings chaos, and just as voters voted for a Black man to fix what white men had ruined almost to the point of a new Great Depression, they may well turn to a woman to fix what men ruined in the next 4 years. But either way, I don't see Democratic voters acting on the basis of anyone's sexism in our primary voting.
I think it is less "anti-washington" sentiment that makes this a problem and more just the crunch of having to pivot immediately from a Senate campaign to a presidential campaign and the endless charges from whoever the opponent is saying she will be too busy running for President to do anything for Michigan. If she doesn't want to run in 28 though she should go for it.
I think youтАЩre both right while throw in a tad of, тАЬPick a job!тАЭ Applying for multiple jobs at once is smart for the job seeker but at this level of competition and as the one deciding, IтАЩd want someone to pick a lane.
She could, but it's a lot easier to run a national campaign without a day job.
I didn't think she'd run, back when I thought Peters was going to stay in office. Now that that's changed, I have to change my thinking.
My best guess is that it comes down to the balance of her answer on two factors. (1) How badly does she want to stick around in politics if she cannot move up? Is a sideways job change desirable or would she rather retire? Is being a career politician worth it? (2) How strongly does she rate her chance at actually getting that promotion? Is it worth the costs to seeking that promotion if she can guarantee a senate seat?
I already made one wrong guess here, so I won't try making another. But that's what I'd expect the decision points to come down to.
Those are legit considerations I would have with myself in that position. But, there is one overarching one - Say fuck it all and go for becoming the first female POTUS. If this were Deal or No Deal, this is a no deal!!!
Those of us from the SSP days know her name well. We wanted to her run for Gov in 2010 and she said no, not the time. She said it again in 2014. Both were horrible midterm year elections and she knew to not waste her shine on crappy electoral years.
That woman has a plan and is thinking the long game.
I think she holds off and runs for the Office Which Shall Not Be Named
I think, if she's wise, she'll run for Senate.
I am not convinced of this; I think Trump could be historically bad in his 2nd term
I could obviously be wrong, but I think it will be some time before a woman is at the top of the ticket.
I'm a little more skeptical/optimistic. I think Clinton and Harris each had their own bad hands to play that hurt them more than their gender but I would agree sexism is a political force/headwind.
I think the Harris campaign had divisive ads that really emboldened the male voters to vote for Trump in a way that the Clinton campaign didn't back in 2016.
Putting out an ad where women decide to secretly vote for Harris and don't tell their own husbands about it was one of the dumbest decisions any presidential campaign has ever made. I can see why men thought this was sexist.
I feel the opposite Clinton campaign made gender a front and center issue "I'm with her" where as Kamala attempted to downplay it regardless of whatever superpac came up with that ad you referenced.
Yeah, that makes sense.
тАЬIтАЩm With HerтАЭ also doesnтАЩt take into account the fact that not all women were Clinton supporters or even warming up to her. This wasnтАЩt just with women Trump supporters but certain women Bernie Sanders supporters on the far liberal side. After Bernie lost the Democratic Presidential Nomination, these voters were more inclined to voting Green and felt Jill Stein as a Green Party Presidential Candidate back in 2016 spoke about the social justice issues better for them.
That said, since Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election there have been quite a number of women Democrats being elected to office in the House, Senate and other statewide offices who have emerged as stronger and smarter in their political campaigns than what Clinton did with herтАЩs.
Don't forget that Clinton won the popular vote by over 5,000,000 votes. She "lost" only in the anti-democratic U.S. system, and with various extenuating circumstances we all know about.
I'm going to exercise caution with this as Trump was taking the steam away from the 2016 and 2024 presidential races.
A woman presidential candidate might be effective if she were a uniting figure like Barack Obama was in 2008 as long as she would bridge the divide between the polarizing sides.
Remember the circumstances under which the first Black presidential candidate won in the U.S. Trump is popular with a lot of idiots, but he brings chaos, and just as voters voted for a Black man to fix what white men had ruined almost to the point of a new Great Depression, they may well turn to a woman to fix what men ruined in the next 4 years. But either way, I don't see Democratic voters acting on the basis of anyone's sexism in our primary voting.
we should certainly hope so; the Democratic party is clearly not perfect, but the current Republican party is evil
She could possibly do both.
No doubt
If national sentiment weren't anti Washington right now, I would agree. It is. Her being a Senator hurts her national ambitions.
ItтАЩs been тАЬanti-WashingtonтАЭ for as long as I can remember.
I think it is less "anti-washington" sentiment that makes this a problem and more just the crunch of having to pivot immediately from a Senate campaign to a presidential campaign and the endless charges from whoever the opponent is saying she will be too busy running for President to do anything for Michigan. If she doesn't want to run in 28 though she should go for it.
I think youтАЩre both right while throw in a tad of, тАЬPick a job!тАЭ Applying for multiple jobs at once is smart for the job seeker but at this level of competition and as the one deciding, IтАЩd want someone to pick a lane.
She could, but it's a lot easier to run a national campaign without a day job.
I didn't think she'd run, back when I thought Peters was going to stay in office. Now that that's changed, I have to change my thinking.
My best guess is that it comes down to the balance of her answer on two factors. (1) How badly does she want to stick around in politics if she cannot move up? Is a sideways job change desirable or would she rather retire? Is being a career politician worth it? (2) How strongly does she rate her chance at actually getting that promotion? Is it worth the costs to seeking that promotion if she can guarantee a senate seat?
I already made one wrong guess here, so I won't try making another. But that's what I'd expect the decision points to come down to.
Those are legit considerations I would have with myself in that position. But, there is one overarching one - Say fuck it all and go for becoming the first female POTUS. If this were Deal or No Deal, this is a no deal!!!
Those of us from the SSP days know her name well. We wanted to her run for Gov in 2010 and she said no, not the time. She said it again in 2014. Both were horrible midterm year elections and she knew to not waste her shine on crappy electoral years.
That woman has a plan and is thinking the long game.