All that matters is that a woman was humiliated. It’s not logical, it just is.
8 Likes
Here’s what I actually said, bolded for emphasis
Against Trump specifically, at this point in time, specifically. I absolutely think women can win against other candidates, in the future. But not against this candidate, in this race in 2020.
The easiest way to hand Trump a victory is to pit him against Warren. Which is really sad because, as I said, I think she’s a far more interesting politician than Clinton ever was.
1 Like
It’s trump now, and someone else later.
I have no hope that the future is any different for women. None. Not that it’s important…
7 Likes
I don’t see how trump could win against a woman.
He’s lost approval at a scale that’s unprecedented.
It’s shocking he might win against a potted plant, but the way the DNC is pushing for biden, it might just happen.
3 Likes
I believe Trump is the thousand year storm of political figures.
At least I fervently hope that’s the case. We’ll see. History goes on with us or without us.
1 Like
I think that can happen easily, sadly. Especially if the alternative is a woman.
No. History only is a reflection of human activity and our description of such. We can make better choices, but we choose not to do so.
10 Likes
I think Trump is almost guaranteed to win against a female candidate. It’s exactly what he stands for, it speaks directly to his core audience, it is playing to all his strengths – and it worked last time.
I’m not saying this is in any way good. It isn’t. At all. But it is the current reality we live in.
This is the reality I’ve always lived in, the one where women aren’t taken seriously. It only changes when we decide to change it.
10 Likes
The primary and urgent change we need to make at the moment is getting rid of Trump. Otherwise 4 more years of Trump sets the clock back another decade on… well, everything…
What makes you think the problem is just trump?
8 Likes
Did I say the problem was just Trump? I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that?
Being the elected leader of the free world adds a lot of latitude for setting the clock back (another!) decade for everyone. So yeah, let’s attack the most public, biggest problem that affects the most people first.
Many battles to fight. But this one is critical.
1 Like
No, it isn’t.
The base of regular Democratic voters is insufficient; they’re only about a quarter of the country. There are slightly more of them than there are Republicans, but that won’t do the job in a heavily biased contest.
The question is who can inspire the excluded half of the country into action.
9 Likes
I’m not sure anyone can, because no one who has real answers is being boosted. Instead, we get more of the same “electability” bullshit, which is yet more warmed over misogyny and racism.
We’re (meaning the planet) is fucked, because people just can’t think big enough.
I’m sorry for that, because I did not do nearly enough to help fix the problem.
7 Likes
Running against Trump will present certain unique challenges, but there are ways to deal with them without voting in the primary for someone you don’t like, or for not voting for someone on the basis of sex.
The fact that HRC didn’t deal effectively with Trump doesn’t mean a woman can’t do it. Her campaign naively underestimated how low her attackers would stoop, she wasn’t very effective at countering them, and she chose a “nice guy” running mate that was even worse at this than she was.
I could easily see a Harris campaign effectively countering the crap, and the others would probably be OK with the right choice of running mate. (For example, Buttigieg’s brand of cheerful snark could make him a great VP choice for Warren’s run.)
The number of people in the US who (a) vote, (b) would not vote for a woman, and (b) might vote for a Democrat over Trump, is likely negligible.
5 Likes
I do like Warren’s platform politically, but the whole way she handled the American Indian ancestry thing is a huge red flag for me. She played right into Trump’s hands with that – a massive tactical error. I have no reason to believe the rest of the hypothetical Warren 2020 campaign wouldn’t follow suit. And that’s on top of Trump being strong against women because, well, he’s a regressive trogdolyte who excels at whipping his base into a frenzy over this kinda sexist crap.
Take that all too effective weapon away from him by putting in a guy (I guess ideally an Old White Guy) and all of a sudden things look a lot more winnable.
I’d happily vote for Warren in 2024 or 2028. Gleefully, even. Biden kinda sucks, yeah, but compared to guaranteed four more years of Trump? That’s not even a question.
1 Like
I don’t think his 2016 male primary opponents fared any better in the face of his spurious attacks because they were male.
7 Likes
The missing word from the topic headline (and contained in the Guardian headline) is “either”.
Well W/R/T the headline… without being actually female, I don’t think anyone can credibly be called the Hillary Clinton of 2020. There is far too much viable sexism out there to rage-harvest, as Trump proved.
1 Like
I’d argue Trump isn’t proving anything when Democrat big brains talk about how women shouldn’t run against Trump and the far-right media has had the drum of liberal hypocrisy that Trump has been beating on, so now social media and YT (which is where the biggest push for Trump resides) can give screenshots and videos of “strategists” playing into the opposing sides’ hands.
I think plenty of men, who would otherwise vote for the democratic candidate, crossed lines to vote for Trump, because, for them, the only thing worse than in incompetent asshole in office is a woman.
There is a ton of unexamined misogyny on the left. The only thing stopping them from voting for a woman and making her electable is literally them. That’s it. They just can’t bring themselves to have a woman be the most powerful person in the world… because reasons. It would make them feel emasculated, I guess?
6 Likes
