The issue of whether a woman can win the U.S. presidency has been beaten to death. But Democrats, who have run two women in the last three presidential elections, both of whom lost, can't seem to drop it.
It's so much easier to blame "sexism" for the losses of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris than toxic policies and critical errors made during the campaign. Blaming "sexism" (the voters) for the loss rather than the campaign ("us") takes the burden of losing from the Democratic leadership and places it on the backs of ordinary people.
Two female writers at the New York Times took a stab at explaining why women can't win the presidency. Lisa Lerer and Jess Bidgood went over familiar ground only to arrive at a familiar conclusion.
Of course a woman can win the presidency, you dummies. She just has to be a Republican.
Their theory is that because conservatives don't like women candidates and are biased against them, only a Republican woman can win the White House.
I guess the idea is that the anti-woman voter will choose party loyalty over their sexist, misogynistic attitudes.
Besides being incredibly insulting, it's idiotic. A Republican woman could be the first female president because she's far more likely to favor common sense and realistic policies rather than gender-bending, crackpot diversity/equity/inclusion/identity politics and treat voters like adults.
It's going to be an uphill climb for Democratic women to win the presidency if they have to kowtow to every race, gender, and identity manufactured by their party.
Then you have delusional nutcases like this woman labor leader:
“People feel pretty stung by what happened,” said Liz Shuler, the first woman elected to lead the A.F.L.-C.I.O. Kamala "totally over-performed and yet fell short. So it does feel like that sucker punch of, like, ‘Wow, even when you do everything right, that glass ceiling is still elusive.’”
Kamala Harris did not, in any way, "overperform." That's laughable. She made error after error, starting with choosing America's nightmare dad, Tim Walz, for her vice presidential nominee.
She raised more than a billion dollars and managed to spend all of it in 107 days, ending up $20 million in the hole.
She never shored up her "blue wall" in the Midwest and lost every single swing state. She might have "overperformed" if a pie-eyed prostitute had run for president, but otherwise, nada.
As they process the second defeat of a female nominee, Democrats are divided over the question of how much Ms. Harris’s gender actually contributed to her loss, making it hard to divine what exactly that could mean for their party in 2028. Two weeks before Election Day, Ms. Harris openly dismissed concerns that sexism could hurt her chances, saying in an interview with NBC News that the country was “absolutely” ready to elect a female president.
She rarely mentioned her gender or her race during her brief campaign, a choice that reflected both her personal approach to barrier-breaking opportunities and the long-running Democratic anxieties about female nominees.
The entire "America hates women candidates for president" theme is based on the unknowable notion that deep down inside American voters lurks a dark stain on our soul. It's the original sin of sexism, and it manifests itself as opposition to accepting women in positions of power.
The "proof" for this is that no American woman has ever been elected president. Ergo, Americans are misogynistic woman-haters.
It's a ludicrous analysis based on faulty logic and political wishful thinking.
It's an analysis not based on the facts. There are 24 women serving in the U.S. Senate, 127 women serving in the U.S. House, and four delegates representing U.S. territories. Should there be more? Getting elected to the Senate or Congress is very hard. More and more women are succeeding on their own merits, not because they are women or despite being women. They get elected because of superior ideas and the ability to raise tons of money.
Kamala Harris lost because she ran an incompetent campaign, spouted toxic ideas that incompetent aides told her would get her elected, approved a defective electoral strategy, and cackled out incomprehensible word salads that even a desperately pliant media couldn't fix.
Otherwise, the reason she lost was because of her gender. Right.
