Yeah I have to agree. Cause as much as I was ambivalent with Warren she has a proven track record of getting things done. The consumer projection bureau is her pet project which alone made me think twice before voting for Sanders on Super Tuesday. I just hope if Biden does get the nomination he taps Warren to oversee fixing the bureau again since Trump literally trashed it all to hell.
7 Likes
Agreed 100%
1 Like
Reason magazine’s take on her campaign:
Ah yes, the libertarian take… 
of course they don’t think misogyny had a role in killing her campaign… they don’t think it’s real problem!
20 Likes
You dissagree with the points the author articulates? I’m pretty sure he called mysogyny evil and therefore thinks its a real problem, just not what sunk her campaign.
I didn’t read it yet, not sure if I will. I don’t really need to be told that misogyny doesn’t exist yet again by people who believe themselves to be more rational and logical than me, who will always be dismissive no matter how much research and facts I have on my side. It’s fucking exhausting having to be told over and over again that my own eyes and life experiences are good enough evidence. Fuck that.
Maybe others will tackle the particulars, but I’m frankly sick and tired of beating this horse each and every time a high profile woman dares to exist in a space normally reserved for old white dudes.
14 Likes
Well. it’s got “reason” right there in the title, so it must be.
(Sensing a Gish gallop incoming.)
8 Likes
Fair enough, I am rather troubled about her campaign’s demise and am trying to make heads or tails of it. I was not a full on supporter but like her more than the rest of the pack.
Much like the people who say racism is evil and a real problem but refuse to acknowledge that racism was one of the biggest factors that allowed Trump to come into power.
14 Likes
Given that she noted misogyny had an impact on her campaign, maybe listen to her, instead of a magazine that is guaranteed to not have an objective view on issues like misogyny. As a publication with a libertarian bent, they generally don’t believe systemic racism or misogyny really exists, and will use pretty much any opportunity to rail against discussions of it.
15 Likes
She, not he. But the problem with the article is that it (1) enumerates the gaffes we all know about (like the DNA thing), but doesn’t really contradict the assertion that male candidates get away with similar gaffes, and (b) simply asserts her own reason for the loss, that “Warren could have focused on the working class; instead, she focused on the wokest class,” without giving any argument supporting her thesis that that is what caused her lack of support.
1 Like
The author finds it a bit difficult to believe that the same electorate that elected Hillary did not vote for Warren because she is a woman. To me, at least, that is a good point.
Warren and Clinton are two different women, and their public personas are very different from one another. It is possible to have a misogynistic reaction to the way one woman presents herself, and not to another.
There’s also the possibility, with “never Trumpers” crossing the aisle, among other things, that it’s not even the same electorate this time around, as it was when Clinton ran. In any case, the author is making arguments without citing actual data.
5 Likes
Or maybe both candidates failed to get as many votes as they would have if sexism hadn’t been a huge factor.
If Hillary had been a thrice-married serial philanderer with five kids by three men, zero record of public service and prone to public emotional outbursts at the tiniest perceived slight then she wouldn’t have gotten within a thousand miles of the nomination, let alone won the popular vote by a margin of millions. Hillary got the nomination over Bernie largely because she had a lifetime of experience working with the Democratic political machine that he didn’t. When she faced off against Trump in the general election she had to be head and shoulders above him by every conceivable measure just to stay competitive.
14 Likes
I’m going to go out on a limb, and say there was no good faith argument against Warren or Clinton to begin with.
4 Likes
I don’t think you should be conflating them here. Warren and Clinton are not the same person.
There are a vast number of good faith arguments against Clinton. The Iraq war, the patriot act, the Wall Street bailout, the Honduras coup, and hounding Snowden, just for starters.
But yes. I’m sure that anyone who had a problem with any of that didn’t have the problem “in good faith” and is just a misogynist.
3 Likes
I wasn’t conflating them at all. I just was saying, as you are, that lumping them together is not sound reasoning, and that we are doing a stupid amount of leg work to disprove a dumb argument.
(I’m backing off on saying “as you are”, because I have no idea, but I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, even if you didn’t really do that for me.)
4 Likes
Clinton isn’t running. BTW.
1 Like
I’m really bummed about Liz departing from the race. I was an early and avid Sanders supporter in '16 and saw (with a fair bit of pleasant surprise at the time) a major upswell in my (late Gen X) peer groups political engagement. This time around though Warren was my favorite by far - she has the tactical know-how to get things done, which appealed to me even more than inspiring rhetoric alone (although she has that talent as well). (Seriously, I was amazed to see many of the most cynical, anti-anything-establishment people I know get wholeheartedly behind national campaigns for the first time ever).
I think this is pretty typical of the blinkered mindset of most pundits, who are apparently structurally incapable of realizing that their “left-right” “spectrum” “political scale” “compass” model is both obsolete, (i don’t think it was ever actually valid but the fairness doctrine in media might have had something to do with maintaining the illusion) - and entirely counterproductive, (as evidenced by the media failure to anticipate the current administration, (i.e. it’s actually not a black swan if you can read the writing on wall)).
I was one of those who could not in good conscience support Clinton - in 2016, and because, (and only because), I live in an absolutely guaranteed blue district (Rep. Barabara Lee) I “threw my vote away” to the other woman in the race as a protest vote, (no way would I have done this if it could have influenced the outcome, but I’m painfully aware of the screwed up reality of our electoral system). Clinton didn’t get my vote based mainly on the actions that she took at the the State Dept. (Snowden & Qaddafi being the big ones), but what also influenced it was the neo-liberal order that she is inexorably and un-apologetically a part of. Hillary isn’t Bill, (and that administration hasn’t gotten much critical analysis lately for some reason) - but for many of us that era is remembered as the ratification of Reaganism, people with radical critiques in the 80’s and 90’s saw very little on either “side” in the political establishment that warranted much support. When Reagan traded drugs for guns, gutted the arts and destroyed the labor protections that made decent living possible for many, Bill (and Biden for that matter) - accelerated the war on drugs,and ratified the corporate hegemony that Ronnie and Maggie imagined.
Both Warren’s and Sander’s campaigns are finally breaking with that consensus and we’re witnessing the struggle for some deeply entrenched power systems. (Jesse Jackson just endorsed Sanders!)
I’m grateful for what Liz’s campaign has brought forward to the national discussion - and I’m sure that she’s going to continue with her crucially important work whether in the senate or (hopefully) in the next admin.
10 Likes
