4 ms·

Yeah but the other option was a chick

by roughly 10mo ago

tialaramex 10mo ago
I read an article shortly after Trump's first win which said that American women, especially the oldest remaining generation or so of voters did not believe a woman could be President, and so they were anti-Clinton in a way their comparable daughters were not. At the time I found this an interesting comparison to the UK. In the UK my mother's generation (squarely in that same bracket) voted in Margaret Thatcher†, the "Iron Lady" and so they know a woman is no different from a man in terms of potential to lead. Which doesn't mean (see Liz Truss) better but also doesn't mean worse. So in the UK you could definitely put a strong female leader at the top of the ticket and expect to get the same response, and in the US that seems likely in the future but it certainly counted against Clinton and even in 2028 it's probably a bad bet (assuming that is, that the US holds a meaningful presidential election in 2028) † Thatcher isn't much liked, especially in some parts of the UK, but nobody is fooling themselves by thinking she was incompetent or ineffectual, they mostly thought she was bad which is different.
- roughly 10mo ago
  Yeah, I think that after 2024 neither political party is likely to run a woman for president for the next generation at a minimum, and I think the voters agree. (I don’t think that’s GOOD, mind you, but twice bitten)
  - acdha 10mo ago
    I don’t think Democrats will. I did think there’s a non-trivial chance of an Ivanka ticket depending on how the family brand is doing by then. He’s used to thinking in terms of nepotism and his sons have the charisma of floor wax.
    - actionfromafar 10mo ago
      That’s very charitable. Floor wax has utility.
  - adabyron 10mo ago
    I see no reason why both parties should not try. Nikki Haley did very well in the primary against a more well known Ron DeSantis & Chris Christie. We have had multiple governors. The only 2 that have run are not a good example. A lot of people had strong opinions on Hillary that had nothing to do with her politics or leadership. A lot didn't want another 4-8 years of Clinton/Bush after 28 years depending on how you count Bush Sr. You could even add another 4 to that for Hillary's 4 yrs of influence as Secretary of State. Harris wasn't popular in the primaries, many thought she wasn't deserving of the VP & she was part of an unpopular White House that was given a few ticking time bombs that they didn't properly diffuse. They also failed miserably to communicate with the public.
- phantasmish 10mo ago
  Both of these two contests were really weird. Trump is an extremely unusual Republican. Hillary was someone Republican mouthpieces had been priming the electorate to vote against for the prior 20+ years. Kamala moved to the top of the ticket late in the race, in an odd move, replacing a candidate whose approval ratings had been in (historically speaking) “you will definitely lose” territory for months already. Both races were pretty close despite this. Also, I can tell you first hand that heartland, salt of the earth, common clay of the new west Republicans, the worst of the worst from democrats’ perspectives, loved Palin. Looooved her. She’d have done better among them than McCain. That’s among hardcore republicans. How the shit am I supposed to believe Hillary and Kamala being women is the reason they lost, given that? I think the “lesson” of “well a woman just can’t win yet” is simply ignorant. It doesn’t fit what we’ve actually seen.
  - Loughla 10mo ago
    You're correct. That woman (Clinton) had no chance in winning, because Republicans had spent years hammering her in anticipation of her inevitable run, and many Democrats felt she was chosen before the primary, leading to much apathy. Had Harris had more time, she could've taken it. Or, as you said, had the Republicans put up Palin, I think the world would look veery different today. I don't think there would've been as much of an appetite for the populist trump nonsense today. But it's all essentially naval gazing.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 10mo ago
      > NAVAL gazing I see what you did, there…
    - FireBeyond 10mo ago
      > and many Democrats felt she was chosen before the primary, leading to much apathy Well, they would have a good reason to feel that, because Debbie Wasserman Schulz basically engineered it that way as head of the DNC, and what do you know, less than 24 hours after leaving that position was the head of Clinton's campaign. There was no way the DNC leadership was going with Bernie, and leaked emails later confirmed that - they just said fuck you to their membership's preferences. > Had Harris had more time Not coincidentally, number one Google search on Election Day? "Did Biden drop out?" Very informed electorate...
- mr_toad 10mo ago
  Some of Britains most celebrated monarchs were women, so that might have some influence on how women in positions of power are regarded.
- JKCalhoun 10mo ago
  It's been said for a long time that the first woman President of the United States would be conservative. The stated rationale was that voters would somehow see the conservativeness as cancelling out the "natural liberalness" of a woman. Margaret Thatcher does not dispel that somewhat hackneyed notion. Nor do the last two women Democrats in the U.S. that ran.
  - nsxwolf 10mo ago
    I would like you to please consider that we conservatives would vote for a conservative woman because she aligns with our values, not because something is "cancelling out" her woman-ness.
    - JKCalhoun 10mo ago
      I'm not making a judgment about all conservatives. I was pulling up what was assumed an old "truism" and testing it against recent history.
adastra22 10mo ago
I know you being somewhat sarcastic, but the problem is the democrats put forward a checkbox-ticking uninspired candidate that had no business running for president - which I say based on her atrocious record in California and as VP. Her gender doesn’t factor into this. Or in the case of Clinton, the party used undemocratic means to counter a political groundswell for a candidate they didn’t like, triggering an apathetic exit and no turnout for the most important voting bloc. Most critically, the party seems utterly incapable of learning from these mistakes, and only doubles down on the worst decisions in the next election. As it stands, we’d probably get a trans candidate (if there is one available) in the next presidential election. Which I’d want to celebrate.. but under present circumstances it would lead to an absolute electoral defeat. The Democratic Party leadership needs to learn to read the f$@!ing room, and put forward candidates with broad appeal.
- JKCalhoun 10mo ago
  > the democrats put forward a checkbox-ticking uninspired candidate that had no business running for president So you're saying the playfield was even. And the man still won.
  - fastball 10mo ago
    You might consider the field even for other reasons (which would make your comment something of a non-sequitur), but those adjectives certainly do not apply to Trump, regardless of what you think of the man and his politics. Trump very famously did not tick GOP checkboxes, and he has inspired a cultish following in a way that Clinton/Biden/Harris clearly cannot.
    - amarant 10mo ago
      I kinda hate that we're apparently selecting for "best cult leader" now. Surely this wasn't what the Greeks intended when they invented democracy.
      - adastra22 10mo ago
nsxwolf 10mo ago
Please consider that Republicans voted for Sarah Palin.
15155 10mo ago
How did she do in the primaries?

Yeah but the other option was a chick

by roughly 10mo ago

Yeah but the other option was a chick

I read an article shortly after Trump's first win which said that American women, especially the oldest remaining generation or so of voters did not believe a woman could be President, and so they were anti-Clinton in a way their comparable daughters were not. At the time I found this an interesting comparison to the UK. In the UK my mother's generation (squarely in that same bracket) voted in Margaret Thatcher†, the "Iron Lady" and so they know a woman is no different from a man in terms of potential to lead. Which doesn't mean (see Liz Truss) better but also doesn't mean worse. So in the UK you could definitely put a strong female leader at the top of the ticket and expect to get the same response, and in the US that seems likely in the future but it certainly counted against Clinton and even in 2028 it's probably a bad bet (assuming that is, that the US holds a meaningful presidential election in 2028) † Thatcher isn't much liked, especially in some parts of the UK, but nobody is fooling themselves by thinking she was incompetent or ineffectual, they mostly thought she was bad which is different.

roughly 10mo ago
Yeah, I think that after 2024 neither political party is likely to run a woman for president for the next generation at a minimum, and I think the voters agree. (I don’t think that’s GOOD, mind you, but twice bitten)
- acdha 10mo ago
  I don’t think Democrats will. I did think there’s a non-trivial chance of an Ivanka ticket depending on how the family brand is doing by then. He’s used to thinking in terms of nepotism and his sons have the charisma of floor wax.
  - actionfromafar 10mo ago
    That’s very charitable. Floor wax has utility.
- adabyron 10mo ago
  I see no reason why both parties should not try. Nikki Haley did very well in the primary against a more well known Ron DeSantis & Chris Christie. We have had multiple governors. The only 2 that have run are not a good example. A lot of people had strong opinions on Hillary that had nothing to do with her politics or leadership. A lot didn't want another 4-8 years of Clinton/Bush after 28 years depending on how you count Bush Sr. You could even add another 4 to that for Hillary's 4 yrs of influence as Secretary of State. Harris wasn't popular in the primaries, many thought she wasn't deserving of the VP & she was part of an unpopular White House that was given a few ticking time bombs that they didn't properly diffuse. They also failed miserably to communicate with the public.
phantasmish 10mo ago
Both of these two contests were really weird. Trump is an extremely unusual Republican. Hillary was someone Republican mouthpieces had been priming the electorate to vote against for the prior 20+ years. Kamala moved to the top of the ticket late in the race, in an odd move, replacing a candidate whose approval ratings had been in (historically speaking) “you will definitely lose” territory for months already. Both races were pretty close despite this. Also, I can tell you first hand that heartland, salt of the earth, common clay of the new west Republicans, the worst of the worst from democrats’ perspectives, loved Palin. Looooved her. She’d have done better among them than McCain. That’s among hardcore republicans. How the shit am I supposed to believe Hillary and Kamala being women is the reason they lost, given that? I think the “lesson” of “well a woman just can’t win yet” is simply ignorant. It doesn’t fit what we’ve actually seen.
- Loughla 10mo ago
  You're correct. That woman (Clinton) had no chance in winning, because Republicans had spent years hammering her in anticipation of her inevitable run, and many Democrats felt she was chosen before the primary, leading to much apathy. Had Harris had more time, she could've taken it. Or, as you said, had the Republicans put up Palin, I think the world would look veery different today. I don't think there would've been as much of an appetite for the populist trump nonsense today. But it's all essentially naval gazing.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 10mo ago
    > NAVAL gazing I see what you did, there…
  - FireBeyond 10mo ago
    > and many Democrats felt she was chosen before the primary, leading to much apathy Well, they would have a good reason to feel that, because Debbie Wasserman Schulz basically engineered it that way as head of the DNC, and what do you know, less than 24 hours after leaving that position was the head of Clinton's campaign. There was no way the DNC leadership was going with Bernie, and leaked emails later confirmed that - they just said fuck you to their membership's preferences. > Had Harris had more time Not coincidentally, number one Google search on Election Day? "Did Biden drop out?" Very informed electorate...
mr_toad 10mo ago
Some of Britains most celebrated monarchs were women, so that might have some influence on how women in positions of power are regarded.
JKCalhoun 10mo ago
It's been said for a long time that the first woman President of the United States would be conservative. The stated rationale was that voters would somehow see the conservativeness as cancelling out the "natural liberalness" of a woman. Margaret Thatcher does not dispel that somewhat hackneyed notion. Nor do the last two women Democrats in the U.S. that ran.
- nsxwolf 10mo ago
  I would like you to please consider that we conservatives would vote for a conservative woman because she aligns with our values, not because something is "cancelling out" her woman-ness.
  - JKCalhoun 10mo ago
    I'm not making a judgment about all conservatives. I was pulling up what was assumed an old "truism" and testing it against recent history.

adastra22 10mo ago

I know you being somewhat sarcastic, but the problem is the democrats put forward a checkbox-ticking uninspired candidate that had no business running for president - which I say based on her atrocious record in California and as VP. Her gender doesn’t factor into this. Or in the case of Clinton, the party used undemocratic means to counter a political groundswell for a candidate they didn’t like, triggering an apathetic exit and no turnout for the most important voting bloc. Most critically, the party seems utterly incapable of learning from these mistakes, and only doubles down on the worst decisions in the next election. As it stands, we’d probably get a trans candidate (if there is one available) in the next presidential election. Which I’d want to celebrate.. but under present circumstances it would lead to an absolute electoral defeat. The Democratic Party leadership needs to learn to read the f$@!ing room, and put forward candidates with broad appeal.

JKCalhoun 10mo ago
> the democrats put forward a checkbox-ticking uninspired candidate that had no business running for president So you're saying the playfield was even. And the man still won.
- fastball 10mo ago
  You might consider the field even for other reasons (which would make your comment something of a non-sequitur), but those adjectives certainly do not apply to Trump, regardless of what you think of the man and his politics. Trump very famously did not tick GOP checkboxes, and he has inspired a cultish following in a way that Clinton/Biden/Harris clearly cannot.
  - amarant 10mo ago
    I kinda hate that we're apparently selecting for "best cult leader" now. Surely this wasn't what the Greeks intended when they invented democracy.
    - adastra22 10mo ago

nsxwolf 10mo ago

Please consider that Republicans voted for Sarah Palin.

15155 10mo ago

How did she do in the primaries?