First Hillary Clinton, now Elizabeth Warren. What is it about America that we’re such misogynists that we vote against women just because they’re women?
It can’t be their rancid ideas, their unlikability, their lack of trustworthiness, or the fact that voters don’t care much for them. Of course, it’s their gender.
It’s enough to make me feel, well, despairing: that we had the candidate of a lifetime — someone with the energy, vision, and follow-through to lead the country out of our nightmarish era — and that the media and voters basically outright erased and ignored her.
“Erased” and “ignored” Elizabeth Warren? I guess if you’ve been living under a rock for the past three years, you might think that. Otherwise, one has to think that the author of this pity-us-women piece lives in an alternate reality. It was impossible to ignore Elizabeth Warren. She is still a unique political force, a spokesperson for the radical left. That many Democrats never got to the point of voting for her had as much to do with fears that she was unelectable against Donald Trump as any other factor.
It’s the same factor that’s dooming Bernie Sanders’ candidacy, and he’s a man. But when the same standard is applied to a radical female, it’s sexism. Really?
Perhaps we should examine why voters — men and women — believed Elizabeth Warren to be “unelectable.”
Under pressure, she finally released a plan that she said proved that she could make the math work. In reality, it claimed a payroll tax that would fall on middle-class Americans didn’t count as a tax increase, relied on a series of unrealistic assumptions that dramatically understated spending and overstated revenues — and still came up $14 trillion short of what independent experts have estimated would be needed to finance a plan with as many benefits as she promised.
Emory health finance expert Kenneth Thorpe told me at the time that the plan’s claimed administrative savings were “unrealistically low” and that the promised cuts to drug prices “would be the end of any type of research and development and innovation in this country.”
Her declaration that “I’m with Bernie” on the need to eliminate private insurance lumped the two of them together in the minds of many voters, putting more moderate Democrats out of reach. But at the same time, she created suspicions among Bernie Sanders supporters who came to view her as insincere.
Why do radical men and women believe that the sheer goodness of their ideas should triumph and that anyone who can’t see the beauty of them is a racist/sexist/misogynist/ageist? Ascribing prejudice and hate to people who disagree with you politically may make you feel better, but it’s as divorced from reality as it gets.
Get over it, ladies. Yes, there are some people who won’t vote for any female candidate. But Hillary Clinton destroyed the idea that parties won’t nominate a woman. It’s entirely her fault that she was the absolute worst presidential candidate in modern political history. Not because she was a woman, but because she spent a billion dollars telling the voters what they already knew: she was going to be the first female president.
The vote for president is the most personal vote Americans cast. There are a dozen reasons why someone votes for president and another dozen why they don’t. Gender ain’t one of them.
But a new national poll of 1,912 likely Democratic voters shows both Warren and Harris matching or outscoring men on measures of likability, including whether voters are excited about candidates or would like to hang out with them as friends. The poll, conducted in July by communications and strategy firm PerryUndem and provided to Vox exclusively ahead of publication, also found Warren and Harris beating some of their male competitors in terms of favorability. More than 40 percent of those polled had a strongly favorable view of Warren and 32.5 percent said the same of Harris, compared with 27.7 percent for Sen. Bernie Sanders and 24.2 percent for former Vice President Joe Biden.
Next time, try running a woman who appeals to a wide swath of voters — a woman who doesn’t want to revolutionize the world, just make it better. If a woman like that were to run, she’d have a much better shot at winning than a radical liberal like Warren or a shady, untrustworthy liberal with horrible ideas like Hillary Clinton.