While those are two possible points of data, there are a number of other factors that contributed to each Democratic candidates’ loss vs. Trump.
Both suffered from being establishment candidates in an antiestablishment era.
Both were only really willing to push to milquetoast progressive policies.
Both followed disappointing democratic presidents that promised a lot and delivered little, often due to their own party sabotaging attempts at major progressive reform.
I truly think that Democrat voters want real, progressive change (even if they find words like “socialism” scary) but most Democrat politicians aren’t willing to anger their wealthy Third Way/Neoliberal/Abundance/whatever-the-fuck-they-want-to-call-themselves donors.
Here is a basic logical analysis of our “democratic” republic.
Everything, and i mean EVERYTHING regarding our sociopolitical system is up for sale and easily manipulated by money. It was this way before citizens United but then citizens united just exacerbated this and pushed this so far that a study done by Princeton concluded that the amount of influence one has on any potential political policy is directly proportional to how wealthy you are with regular working class people having a statistically irrelevant near zero level of influence on any potential policy/Legislation regardless as to how popular or unpopular it may be.
So in a system where it is obvious a small group of people with immense wealth and privilege who act as though they have divine provenance to dictate how our society is run what gives anyone the extremely naive idea that for a class of people who effectively believe themselves to be above the law they would for some reason consider the American democratic process to be one step too far for them to exert influence upon by any means necessary?
In Germany there was a supreme court case concerning election integrity within the last 15-20 years or so(i don’t exactly remember when) but the supreme court ultimately decided that electronic voting is unconstitutional because it is impossible to differentiate between fraudulent results and legitimate ones for laypeople who are not cybersecurity/ IT experts. And this is what the US needs immediately as well as a repeal of citizens United, and laws that prevent a biased
Supreme Court acting in bad faith.
True leftism has been eradicated from the sociopolitical discourse. The Democratic party has shifted to the right every election since LBJ refused the party nomination and then RFK was subsequently shot in the head. To think that this has not been achieved through subversive collusion of individuals/ organizations/ entities with like minded interests and agendas requires the same level of naïveté it takes to believe our presidential elections have not been tampered with to benefit wall street
Military and prison industry profiteers.
If you want more data there is also Congress which is only 28% female, and historically there were far less. I think the sentiment I saw in a lot of republicans wasn’t that they supported Trump all that much, but that they opposed Hillary and Harris.
What exactly makes you say Joe Biden was a better candidate than either as far as those bullet points?
I’m sure some minority of the population is misogynistic and wouldn’t vote for a woman. I just don’t think it’s enough misogynists to ruin their chances.
Both suffered from being establishment candidates in an anti-establishment era.
Yes, Biden definitely suffered from this.
Both were only really willing to push to milquetoast progressive policies.
In the primaries, absolutely. However, once Biden won, he took on projects from the progressive wing, likely in exchange for full throated endorsement/support. Green new deal type stuff. Not amazing, but not nothing. A lot of the more progressive goals were wrecked by Democrats’ hopeless naivety, or feigned ignorance, when attempts were made to reach across the aisle and get some consensus from Republicans… who had made it crystal fucking clear that their only goal was obstruction and sabotage. Then other Democrats straight up ruined it themselves. Anyway…
Both followed disappointing democratic presidents that promised a lot and delivered little, often due to their own party sabotaging attempts at major progressive reform.
Biden’s biggest advantage was that he followed Trump. I’m fucking appalled that people had already forgotten the first time. Makes me wonder if it wasn’t rigged by Republicans more thoroughly than had become obvious.
Sure, if you’re trying to win as a Republican, being female is pretty hard. Luckily Democrats don’t win elections by seeking far right votes.
Overall, 150 women are set to serve in the 119th Congress starting next year, down just slightly from the current record of 152 (which represents 28 percent of all members). As has long been the case though, there are sharp partisan imbalances here: 42 percent of incoming Democratic members and just 15 percent of incoming Republican members are women. And based on this year’s results, that imbalance doesn’t appear to be narrowing, particularly as female candidates within the Republican Party face persistent structural and cultural barriers to running and winning.
I wonder if you read this exact article and just cherry picked the number to justify your stance.
This is complete and total gatekeeping (actual sexism) bullshit that is frequently parroted but not actually analyzed with a modicum of depth, for one actually did, they would realize it has no bearing in reality. If anyone wants me to explain why, I will happily do so.
Unlike you I imagine, I actually door-kncoked on GOP and Independent households so yes, dare I say I’ve gone outside while in a battleground state no less.
I say again because there has been no evidence provided to the contrary: There is no evidence Harris lost because she was a woman. Put another way, if we placed Biden in her position or if we placed an identical copy of Harris as a male, she too would’ve lost for a multitude of factors beyond the fact she was a woman (again, because no actual sexist fuck was reachable in the first place for Democrats and never are).
I say again because there has been no evidence provided to the contrary
Twice americans chose the fascist over the woman. Now Americans won’t have free elections anymore so they will never have a female president unless her last name is Trump maybe. So I guess they got what they wanted.
Sure, there’s other factors, but even if they were exactly what voters wanted, there would be a stigma around it. I mean, even women hate women and actively vote to sabotage their own Healthcare so it’s not really based on any logic. Maybe in 20 years when the olds are gone, and IF the youngs don’t get brainwashed by Tate types, there could be a female president.
I mean even men hate men at times; this male here would much prefer a female candidate so it slices both ways.
Reality remains: true bigots; trust sexists were only ever voting conservative, regardless if it was Obama, Biden, or a female like Harris or AOC. So that alone is a non-starter.
I voted for the female candidates, they both lost. The gender divide in congress is 7:18, only 28% of elected federal representatives are women. Gen Z voters were divided along gender lines between Trump and Harris. I don’t know how to fix this problem, but ignoring it is not the solution.
This has fundamentally zero bearing on the actual outcome of the Presidential election; moreover there are many less female candidates seeking office in the first place. Yes, sexism exists — that’s not in dispute —but sexist voters were never in reach in the first place, whether it was Harris, Biden, Hillary, or Obama.
A majority of registered voters are women.
A majority of actual voters are consistently women.
There is just as much risk of women getting pissed off and protesting and staying home because they are tired for voting male candidates.
There is zero evidence a woman cannot win. You just can’t run inauthentic consultancy-crafted non-charismatic candidates, and BOTH Hillary and Kamala were. Mind you, the same holds true for men. Go ahead and just try to run Tim Kaine and see what happens, I dare you.
This made all the more clear by the fact that the vast vast vast majority of misogynistic sexist bigots are already a firm part of the conservative maga base —And so they were Never. Up. For. Grabs in the first place.
I’ve got a relatively small sample size, but considering the alternative I dont think its worth grandstanding on your soapbox for another 4-8 years just to trot out another losing horse.
Instead of being a gatekeeping sexist, I’m going to continue to reiterate (for lack of evidence and also because it’s the right thing) that sex / gender of the candidate does not matter in the slightest, and the only thing that matters are their policies, their authenticity, and their charisma — male, or female.
Also because there hasn’t been a lick of evidence to suggest Harris lost because she’s a woman. Also because, as I pointed out and you conveniently ignored: All actual sexists were never reachable votes for Democrats in the first place.
We don’t need them, and we don’t fucking want them.
28% of congress is female, 50.5% of the general population and their ratio gets higher in the average age group that corresponds to congress’. The percentage of people enthusiastic about a female president is down since 2015, a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.
We’re not talking about convincing a population of unbiased, nonprejudiced people. We’re talking about convincing a nation full of hateful assholes. A lot of republican voters will mobilize solely to keep women out of power.
In 1937, the first time the public was asked by Gallup about its willingness to vote for a female president, the question included the caveat “if she were qualified in every other respect.” Gallup removed that phrase, with its implications, and tried a new version in 1945, asking, “If the party whose candidate you most often support nominated a woman for President of the United States, would you vote for her if she seemed best qualified for the job?” The results remained the same, with about one-third saying yes.
In 1948, the country was split on a new version of this question, which identified the woman candidate as qualified, but not “best” qualified. The final wording became settled in 1958 and has been asked repeatedly since. Large gains were made over the 1970’s and the proportion answering yes has continued to rise, reaching 95% in the most recent poll.
Americans may say they are willing to vote for a woman, but when asked to assess the willingness of others, people have not been as optimistic about women’s chances of winning the presidency. In 1984, when NBC asked likely voters if they were ready to elect a woman president, only 17% said yes. Substantial shares of the population have remained skeptical, though the most recent poll found the lowest proportion who believe the country is not yet ready.
In Christianity, the bible forbids women from exercising authority over men in the church - they are forbidden from any leadership role within the church. This begs the question: what makes you think Christians will vote to elect a woman to the highest level of leadership this country has, into a position where she can make decisions affecting not just one church, but every single church across the US?
Independent Party Bernie Sanders was invited to participate on the DNC presidential tickets on multiple occasions and in 2016 he earned over 13 Million Votes compared to Hillary Clinton’s 16 Million.
If 4 Million more people voted for Bernie Sanders then he would have been the name on the Democrats ticket at the top of ballots across the nation.
The DNC had absolutely no incentive nor obligation to run Bernie in their primaries, they like his policies and gave voters the option to have him represent them as our president.
Americans chose a felon rapist clown fascist over HIGHLY qualified women. Twice.
America is not even close to being ready for a female president.
If we want to lose again, run a woman. That’s the shit reality in this shitty country.
Not to mention AOC is still “green”. Clinton was a Senator, a Secretary of State, and ex-first lady. Kamala was a VP. AOC is just a member of the House.
People need to stop fantasizing and get real. It’s also WAY too early to seriously be talking about this.
I remember bullshit like this being spewed about Obama, too. “Obama is too green!” “a black man could NEVER be president. We have never had one before, after all!” (Or are you too young to remember that? I forget there are adults on here now who weren’t even 2-years-old when he was elected.)
… Cue him defeating 2 white successful men by large margins. Doh. Think this through and stop parroting wedge-driving sexist gatekeeping conservative propaganda.
Also Hillary was a famously unpopular candidate and still won the popular vote, and there were maaaany confounding factors to a weak democratic race in 2024 apart from Kamala’s gender
She was at one point one of the most popular politicians in America, actually. She polled among the general population alongside Bernie Sanders. People decided she was awful once she started running for president and Social Media campaigns told everyone what to think about her.
Got it so if you had a list of the top 5 candidates and Bernie were in the list then you would get really upset that somebody claimed he was top 5 and not top 1 or 2?
How many black candidates lost to white candidates in a post-primary presidential race?
That’s right, zero.
How many female candidates have lost to male candidates in a post-primary presidential race?
Two, or in other words, all of them.
You can make an argument to say that there was racist gatekeeping back when Obama was running, and that was absolutely true, but we never actually had a situation where a political party fronted a black man and lost. We actually do have data that shows that America rejected a female presidential candidate twice. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that America simply isn’t socially developed enough to be capable of looking past the misogyny and we should take that into consideration if our goal is to win.
Ar… Are you really going to use Samples N=1 and N=2 as some sort of statistical relevance? Wtaf?
This logic is most asinine. By that logic, the vast majority of Presidential losses were of white men, and my sample is higher!
Two non-charismatic inauthentic candidates lost, and race and gender had little to do with it because the bigots already coalesce under the maga banner; the problem was that their lack of vision, charisma, authenticity led to the reachable swing-voters either sitting on the couch, or voting for Trump on failed perceptions that he was better for the economy.
So I guess your excuse if AOC or whatever female candidate the DNC happen to trot out next loses to the next guy, be that JD Vance, some other MAGA nutjob, or even Trump taking a shot at a third term, is that she isn’t charismatic or authentic, is that right?
No, no, it couldn’t possibly be because America has a misogyny problem. I mean, never mind the fact that black men earned the right to vote before any woman did, that’s not relevant at all. History never repeats itself. I’m sure those basement dwelling neckbeards and macho-man wanna-bes will TOTALLY sign on to canvas for AOC. I’m sure her being a woman will not be a factor at all, people will be so enamored with her great policy that they will forget about it entirely!
I think it’s hilarious that if we put Tim Kaine or Biden himself (who was losing by a larger margin than Harris in polling) in, they would’ve lost just the same if not more so… Yet you wouldn’t be here saying, “Golly gee-wizz, I think people are sexist and tired of old white men! I mean, the majority registered voters ARE women after all!” — Therein revealing one’s own gatekeeping sexist dogma.
NGL I’ll take any blue tie but we’ve already shown twice that Americans might actually prefer fascism over a woman in charge.
While those are two possible points of data, there are a number of other factors that contributed to each Democratic candidates’ loss vs. Trump.
I truly think that Democrat voters want real, progressive change (even if they find words like “socialism” scary) but most Democrat politicians aren’t willing to anger their wealthy Third Way/Neoliberal/Abundance/whatever-the-fuck-they-want-to-call-themselves donors.
Here is a basic logical analysis of our “democratic” republic.
Everything, and i mean EVERYTHING regarding our sociopolitical system is up for sale and easily manipulated by money. It was this way before citizens United but then citizens united just exacerbated this and pushed this so far that a study done by Princeton concluded that the amount of influence one has on any potential political policy is directly proportional to how wealthy you are with regular working class people having a statistically irrelevant near zero level of influence on any potential policy/Legislation regardless as to how popular or unpopular it may be.
So in a system where it is obvious a small group of people with immense wealth and privilege who act as though they have divine provenance to dictate how our society is run what gives anyone the extremely naive idea that for a class of people who effectively believe themselves to be above the law they would for some reason consider the American democratic process to be one step too far for them to exert influence upon by any means necessary?
In Germany there was a supreme court case concerning election integrity within the last 15-20 years or so(i don’t exactly remember when) but the supreme court ultimately decided that electronic voting is unconstitutional because it is impossible to differentiate between fraudulent results and legitimate ones for laypeople who are not cybersecurity/ IT experts. And this is what the US needs immediately as well as a repeal of citizens United, and laws that prevent a biased Supreme Court acting in bad faith.
True leftism has been eradicated from the sociopolitical discourse. The Democratic party has shifted to the right every election since LBJ refused the party nomination and then RFK was subsequently shot in the head. To think that this has not been achieved through subversive collusion of individuals/ organizations/ entities with like minded interests and agendas requires the same level of naïveté it takes to believe our presidential elections have not been tampered with to benefit wall street Military and prison industry profiteers.
If you want more data there is also Congress which is only 28% female, and historically there were far less. I think the sentiment I saw in a lot of republicans wasn’t that they supported Trump all that much, but that they opposed Hillary and Harris.
What exactly makes you say Joe Biden was a better candidate than either as far as those bullet points?
I’m sure some minority of the population is misogynistic and wouldn’t vote for a woman. I just don’t think it’s enough misogynists to ruin their chances.
Yes, Biden definitely suffered from this.
In the primaries, absolutely. However, once Biden won, he took on projects from the progressive wing, likely in exchange for full throated endorsement/support. Green new deal type stuff. Not amazing, but not nothing. A lot of the more progressive goals were wrecked by Democrats’ hopeless naivety, or feigned ignorance, when attempts were made to reach across the aisle and get some consensus from Republicans… who had made it crystal fucking clear that their only goal was obstruction and sabotage. Then other Democrats straight up ruined it themselves. Anyway…
Biden’s biggest advantage was that he followed Trump. I’m fucking appalled that people had already forgotten the first time. Makes me wonder if it wasn’t rigged by Republicans more thoroughly than had become obvious.
Sure, if you’re trying to win as a Republican, being female is pretty hard. Luckily Democrats don’t win elections by seeking far right votes.
I wonder if you read this exact article and just cherry picked the number to justify your stance.
This is complete and total gatekeeping (actual sexism) bullshit that is frequently parroted but not actually analyzed with a modicum of depth, for one actually did, they would realize it has no bearing in reality. If anyone wants me to explain why, I will happily do so.
Have you gone outside? Americans (even women) don’t want a woman president. We are stuck in 1890.
Unlike you I imagine, I actually door-kncoked on GOP and Independent households so yes, dare I say I’ve gone outside while in a battleground state no less.
I say again because there has been no evidence provided to the contrary: There is no evidence Harris lost because she was a woman. Put another way, if we placed Biden in her position or if we placed an identical copy of Harris as a male, she too would’ve lost for a multitude of factors beyond the fact she was a woman (again, because no actual sexist fuck was reachable in the first place for Democrats and never are).
Twice americans chose the fascist over the woman. Now Americans won’t have free elections anymore so they will never have a female president unless her last name is Trump maybe. So I guess they got what they wanted.
Sure, there’s other factors, but even if they were exactly what voters wanted, there would be a stigma around it. I mean, even women hate women and actively vote to sabotage their own Healthcare so it’s not really based on any logic. Maybe in 20 years when the olds are gone, and IF the youngs don’t get brainwashed by Tate types, there could be a female president.
I mean even men hate men at times; this male here would much prefer a female candidate so it slices both ways.
Reality remains: true bigots; trust sexists were only ever voting conservative, regardless if it was Obama, Biden, or a female like Harris or AOC. So that alone is a non-starter.
I voted for the female candidates, they both lost. The gender divide in congress is 7:18, only 28% of elected federal representatives are women. Gen Z voters were divided along gender lines between Trump and Harris. I don’t know how to fix this problem, but ignoring it is not the solution.
This has fundamentally zero bearing on the actual outcome of the Presidential election; moreover there are many less female candidates seeking office in the first place. Yes, sexism exists — that’s not in dispute —but sexist voters were never in reach in the first place, whether it was Harris, Biden, Hillary, or Obama.
A majority of registered voters are women.
A majority of actual voters are consistently women.
There is just as much risk of women getting pissed off and protesting and staying home because they are tired for voting male candidates.
There is zero evidence a woman cannot win. You just can’t run inauthentic consultancy-crafted non-charismatic candidates, and BOTH Hillary and Kamala were. Mind you, the same holds true for men. Go ahead and just try to run Tim Kaine and see what happens, I dare you.
This made all the more clear by the fact that the vast vast vast majority of misogynistic sexist bigots are already a firm part of the conservative maga base —And so they were Never. Up. For. Grabs in the first place.
I’ve got a relatively small sample size, but considering the alternative I dont think its worth grandstanding on your soapbox for another 4-8 years just to trot out another losing horse.
Instead of being a gatekeeping sexist, I’m going to continue to reiterate (for lack of evidence and also because it’s the right thing) that sex / gender of the candidate does not matter in the slightest, and the only thing that matters are their policies, their authenticity, and their charisma — male, or female.
Also because there hasn’t been a lick of evidence to suggest Harris lost because she’s a woman. Also because, as I pointed out and you conveniently ignored: All actual sexists were never reachable votes for Democrats in the first place.
We don’t need them, and we don’t fucking want them.
28% of congress is female, 50.5% of the general population and their ratio gets higher in the average age group that corresponds to congress’. The percentage of people enthusiastic about a female president is down since 2015, a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.
We’re not talking about convincing a population of unbiased, nonprejudiced people. We’re talking about convincing a nation full of hateful assholes. A lot of republican voters will mobilize solely to keep women out of power.
Now intersect that with actual reachable swing-voters and Democrats.
Like I said: that tracks for core dyed-in-the-wool MAGA trash that we will never win nor want beneath our banner.
Let’s not make Faustian bargains, shall we?
Edit: Also, your facts are just incorrect, as well as interpretation:
To make it even more clear for you: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/madame-president-changing-attitudes-about-woman-president
In Christianity, the bible forbids women from exercising authority over men in the church - they are forbidden from any leadership role within the church. This begs the question: what makes you think Christians will vote to elect a woman to the highest level of leadership this country has, into a position where she can make decisions affecting not just one church, but every single church across the US?
Didn’t the Dems run on ‘anyone but Sanders’ and they propped up Clinton instead?
Independent Party Bernie Sanders was invited to participate on the DNC presidential tickets on multiple occasions and in 2016 he earned over 13 Million Votes compared to Hillary Clinton’s 16 Million.
If 4 Million more people voted for Bernie Sanders then he would have been the name on the Democrats ticket at the top of ballots across the nation.
The DNC had absolutely no incentive nor obligation to run Bernie in their primaries, they like his policies and gave voters the option to have him represent them as our president.
Exactly.
Americans chose a felon rapist clown fascist over HIGHLY qualified women. Twice.
America is not even close to being ready for a female president.
If we want to lose again, run a woman. That’s the shit reality in this shitty country.
Not to mention AOC is still “green”. Clinton was a Senator, a Secretary of State, and ex-first lady. Kamala was a VP. AOC is just a member of the House.
People need to stop fantasizing and get real. It’s also WAY too early to seriously be talking about this.
I remember bullshit like this being spewed about Obama, too. “Obama is too green!” “a black man could NEVER be president. We have never had one before, after all!” (Or are you too young to remember that? I forget there are adults on here now who weren’t even 2-years-old when he was elected.)
… Cue him defeating 2 white successful men by large margins. Doh. Think this through and stop parroting wedge-driving sexist gatekeeping conservative propaganda.
Also Hillary was a famously unpopular candidate and still won the popular vote, and there were maaaany confounding factors to a weak democratic race in 2024 apart from Kamala’s gender
She was at one point one of the most popular politicians in America, actually. She polled among the general population alongside Bernie Sanders. People decided she was awful once she started running for president and Social Media campaigns told everyone what to think about her.
Too bad that point wasn’t during her campaign.
My point being that no matter who we run there will be vicious smear campaigns attacking their character.
Actually Bernie Sanders was outperforming Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchups against Trump poll after poll.
Umm actually, that didn’t argue counter to anything that I said.
If Sanders outperforms Hillary with the general population against their competitor, then they are not “alongside” — Sanders is, in fact, ahead.
Word definitions matter!
Got it so if you had a list of the top 5 candidates and Bernie were in the list then you would get really upset that somebody claimed he was top 5 and not top 1 or 2?
Obama won btw, he didnt lose because he was too green, or black.
How many black candidates lost to white candidates in a post-primary presidential race?
That’s right, zero.
How many female candidates have lost to male candidates in a post-primary presidential race?
Two, or in other words, all of them.
You can make an argument to say that there was racist gatekeeping back when Obama was running, and that was absolutely true, but we never actually had a situation where a political party fronted a black man and lost. We actually do have data that shows that America rejected a female presidential candidate twice. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that America simply isn’t socially developed enough to be capable of looking past the misogyny and we should take that into consideration if our goal is to win.
So we should run only run black men since your shitty understanding of statistics dictates they have a 100% chance to win.
I never said that, but have fun arguing with the strawman you worked so hard to build up.
Ar… Are you really going to use Samples N=1 and N=2 as some sort of statistical relevance? Wtaf?
This logic is most asinine. By that logic, the vast majority of Presidential losses were of white men, and my sample is higher!
Two non-charismatic inauthentic candidates lost, and race and gender had little to do with it because the bigots already coalesce under the maga banner; the problem was that their lack of vision, charisma, authenticity led to the reachable swing-voters either sitting on the couch, or voting for Trump on failed perceptions that he was better for the economy.
When your logic is absolutely ignoring entire swaths of reality, I think its interesting for you to try to attack someone elses logic.
Quaint deflection.
So I guess your excuse if AOC or whatever female candidate the DNC happen to trot out next loses to the next guy, be that JD Vance, some other MAGA nutjob, or even Trump taking a shot at a third term, is that she isn’t charismatic or authentic, is that right?
No, no, it couldn’t possibly be because America has a misogyny problem. I mean, never mind the fact that black men earned the right to vote before any woman did, that’s not relevant at all. History never repeats itself. I’m sure those basement dwelling neckbeards and macho-man wanna-bes will TOTALLY sign on to canvas for AOC. I’m sure her being a woman will not be a factor at all, people will be so enamored with her great policy that they will forget about it entirely!
I think it’s hilarious that if we put Tim Kaine or Biden himself (who was losing by a larger margin than Harris in polling) in, they would’ve lost just the same if not more so… Yet you wouldn’t be here saying, “Golly gee-wizz, I think people are sexist and tired of old white men! I mean, the majority registered voters ARE women after all!” — Therein revealing one’s own gatekeeping sexist dogma.
Alright but Obama was a man, so
Idk if it’s too early to talk about it, but part of the process is definitely weighing the pros and cons.