Former first lady Michelle Obama said at a recent event that the US isn’t ready for a woman president, pointing to former Vice President Kamala Harris’ unsuccessful bid for the White House last year.
Probably because the US is such a religious conservative country. Christianity (especially evangelical and more conservative type), patriarchy and authoritarianism go together, and that’s who the great majority of his voters were.
Considering trump won twice against women but lost when he ran against a man, it seems the majority of voters would rather elect any man than any woman, even if that man is seriously flawed on every imaginable level. Only when both candidates were men were factors other than gender given more weight.
Given how incredibly well the harris campaign was doing at first and the outpouring of bi-partisan support for shooting CEOs dead in the street immediately after the election, and the barnstorming success of mamdani, i think it’s safe the say harris lost because they took pelosi’s advice and tacked hard to the right, instead of solidifying their early victories by continuing to lean left.
I think it’s pretty clear the country was willing to vote for harris, dems just fucked it up.
Agreed, it was theirs to lose, as it often is. It’s a known fact that if more people vote it tends to swing left, so I’m not sure why they always seem to try and cater to the right side voters who are going to be much harder to convince. I mean I know part of it is most of the Democratic party is actually centralist, but still… go after the easier win that might actually help your case? And maybe move that way politically to ensure power?
Long story short: They’re beholden to their donors, not their constituents. They’re not centrists because they believe in that stuff (I suspect they do, but that’s incidental), but because their donors want them to be centrists. I mean, if they ran on a leftwing program they’d need to do something leftwing to appease their constituents, and that would require them to tax the rich.
Probably because the US is such a religious conservative country. Christianity (especially evangelical and more conservative type), patriarchy and authoritarianism go together, and that’s who the great majority of his voters were.
Considering trump won twice against women but lost when he ran against a man, it seems the majority of voters would rather elect any man than any woman, even if that man is seriously flawed on every imaginable level. Only when both candidates were men were factors other than gender given more weight.
Given how incredibly well the harris campaign was doing at first and the outpouring of bi-partisan support for shooting CEOs dead in the street immediately after the election, and the barnstorming success of mamdani, i think it’s safe the say harris lost because they took pelosi’s advice and tacked hard to the right, instead of solidifying their early victories by continuing to lean left.
I think it’s pretty clear the country was willing to vote for harris, dems just fucked it up.
Agreed, it was theirs to lose, as it often is. It’s a known fact that if more people vote it tends to swing left, so I’m not sure why they always seem to try and cater to the right side voters who are going to be much harder to convince. I mean I know part of it is most of the Democratic party is actually centralist, but still… go after the easier win that might actually help your case? And maybe move that way politically to ensure power?
Long story short: They’re beholden to their donors, not their constituents. They’re not centrists because they believe in that stuff (I suspect they do, but that’s incidental), but because their donors want them to be centrists. I mean, if they ran on a leftwing program they’d need to do something leftwing to appease their constituents, and that would require them to tax the rich.