The Indian thing, the Indian DNA testing thing, the weird Bernie attack, strange misplaced arrogance throughout, look at me I'm fun era... I could go on - glad she is out.
Good news ladies: a group of dudes on a basketball message board have investigated misogynistic charges and found them to be .... Not valid You can achieve in peace. Maybe you'll hit equal pay...one day. I kid but I disagree strongly that there's no quantifiable sexism at work here. It's like arguing systemic racism doesn't exist. Which people actually do. And they are in fact wrong. But that's the thing about systemic racism or sexism. People within the system think it doesn't exist. I don't watch Rachel Maddow but there's been about a billion think pieces launched on this issue in the last 48 hours. Some good ones https://www.theatlantic.com/culture...ished-elizabeth-warren-her-competence/607531/ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/elizabeth-warren-ran-as-a-woman.html https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...xism-keep-warren-from-winning-the-nomination/
This. The idea that any time someone loses it is because of sexism or racism does not help do away with actual sexism and racism. It is tiring.
So, how did she do with women and how did she do with men? AND, how many people supported her because she was a woman and they wanted to see the first woman candidate? Assuming there were misogynistic voters, how did they compare to the pro-woman candidate voter? This is just media fodder for about 36 hours.
I didn't realize that her supporters were actually split among moderate and progressive despite her left-leaning policies (per 538 article on sexism that @SamFisher posted above). So it actually made sense to attack Bloomberg in hopes that his moderate supporters would come over to her side? But then why attack his billionaire status so much? Just knock him for being racist, sexist and authoritarian. I'd assume moderates are pro-capitalism and liked it that he was rich. Even if she could make the case that Bloomberg is same as Trump, I don't think being able to attack Trump makes her all that electable - Kamala proved that it wasn't really viable way to go in long term unless you appeared totally sincere and "moral" at the same time, which Warren didn't due to her previous fumbles. I guess you are right and that she just wanted a temporary boost to gain momentum into the super Tuesday, but everyone by now figured out that attacking does not electable one make and so the tactic had almost an opposite effect. (I forget that she needed to get a funding boost to keep campaign going and a boost in polling to be viable. So she must've decided to shake it up and also kick Bloomberg, as a last resort, to later spin it as taking one for the team. which team though - it only helped Biden to expose hers and Bernie's hate for capitalism and thus killing off chances of forming a coalition on the left)
Of course Warren was a victim of sexism. The latest example being the Matthews interview. There is a reason we have never had a woman President.
Warren did suffer from sexism, but frankly without regard to policy positions (and I prefers hers) such women as Hillary, Tulsi and even Klobuchar seemed at least to me to be more presidential in a way. To me she seemed to be too frantic. IIRC I think as a politician she underperformed the ticket in both her senatorial runs in Massachusetts.
Politico blames her loss on environment of anti-elitism more than anti-women sentiment in the headline article here. They mention her effort to be folksy as "snobbish" (basically implying it as fake given her attained persona). And there is another article (in a batch of secondary Politico essays on the topic) here that I read that goes on to describe what her staff and senior advisors felt to be the problem. It states that they were arrogant in their fundraising projections and ability to figure things out without pollsters (thus ending up without ads by the time primaries started). And by being fake when trying to grab onto moderate supporters by dialing down Warren's fighter's true nature. Both articles have one common thread of Warren just misrepresenting herself too much and neither focuses on sexism much. Then again I didn't read the atlantic aricle on sexism. Word "competence" was in the headline of it and ctrl-F didn't bring up any results on "sexism". Any chance you could summarize what it is about?
Much better than women than among men, especially where there policy preferences aligned. And guess which candidate, who does horribly with women, picked up that slice? How many supported Elizabeth to be "first woman candidate"? Hopefully nobody.
It didn't seem like Klobuchar got much of that vote for those wanting to see a woman president or were a lot of people saying her having to drop out was due to mysogny. Also we had a woman candidate in 2016,
In 2016, a very disliked Hillary won by 3MM votes and lost due to a geographical fluke of losing lots of states by less than 1%. In 2020, we had 5 women run out of 23 candidates, and 2 ended up in the top 5. The top 2 were old white men, but they were also the ones that had the biggest advantages coming into the race, regardless of gender. Meanwhile, women have done extremely well in legislative races for a while now but still struggled with executive races. But recent governor races suggest that trend has turned also. Certainly it was a big issue from the 1700s until fairly recently, but I think Hillary effective broke that barrier fairly well. I'm sure there's some remaining sexism today, but it certainly wasn't anywhere near the top of the the reasons Warren lost. I think if you wanted evidence of sexism, Pete/Amy might be a better potential example since they were in pretty similar lanes, though his early fundraising efforts and stronger organization make that comparison harder.
If we had a candidate like Fiona Hill running we would definitely have our first female president. (We need a waiver for exceptional foreign born citizens)
"Actually, Elizabeth Warren is not the candidate to mourn": https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/07/actually-elizabeth-warren-is-not-candidate-mourn/ Actually, Elizabeth Warren is not the candidate to mourn By Stephen Stromberg Opinion writer March 7, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. EST With Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s exit from the Democratic presidential race, many are mourning that an outstanding woman had to make way for two mediocre men. But the real blow to the cause of electing the first female president came not Wednesday, when Warren bowed out, but two days earlier, when Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar did. She was the competent, reasonable, electable one all along. And Democrats hardly gave her a chance. Warren’s vaunted plans, although numerous, were bad. She was unable to capitalize on her summer polling surge because her health-care plan scared voters. When she filled in more details, many experts panned them as unrealistic and unworkable. Time and again, she displayed a Bernie Sanders-like approach to policy, in which money was assumed to be virtually unlimited and policy trade-offs nonexistent. Yet her campaign and supporters kept pointing to all those plans as evidence of her seriousness. Warren often seemed to preach to a choir who shared her assumptions, while dismissing the notion that anyone could disagree with her in good faith. Imagine, for example, having doubts about her tax plan, and then hearing this: “There are some people who don’t like this. Actually, let’s be more specific. There are some billionaires who don’t like this,” she said at a Feb. 17 rally. No one else? Not even, say, a host of top economists who argued her plan would have been highly inefficient and economically risky? “Oh, they’re just wrong,” she said at a Dec. 19 debate, after being confronted with the fact that experts, not just billionaires, questioned her tax agenda. Warren was equally dismissive of her fellow Democrats. “This is no time for small ideas,” she would often say, in a jab at Klobuchar, former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg and other opponents — who, in fact, had ambitious agendas decidedly to the left of President Barack Obama’s. It was obvious Klobuchar detested the way Warren treated her. After a debate in which Warren called Klobuchar’s health-care plan a “Post-it note,” Klobuchar fired back in an interview with the Post Editorial Board: “[Sanders] puts out his plan, so does Elizabeth [Warren], then we try to put out a plan and they say, ‘oh, that’s nothing. That’s a Post-it note.’ Then we come back and defend it. And I think that it’s been hard for people to see that the plans we propose are actually really bold as well. They’re just different.” More importantly, they were better. Klobuchar proposed a public health-care plan that would not force the whole nation through a chaotic transition off private insurance. She centered her climate plan on pricing carbon dioxide emissions. She admitted there were limits to how much money the federal government could derive from the wealthy, and therefore how many new government services she could promise. So she proposed offering free college tuition only to those who need the help. Klobuchar expressed just as much pride about her substantial achievements. But she did not dismiss people who disagreed with her the way Warren did. Democrats won in 2018, she told The Post, because “people knew that the cause was bigger than their individual views on issues” and an ideologically diverse coalition turned out, including some Republicans. “I just don’t think that being willing to reach out to those people to heal our nation should be viewed as a negative in the Democratic primary. I think it should be viewed as what we need to do, not just to win, but to govern.” Yet Klobuchar was labeled as cautious and boring, and Warren sophisticated and selfless. Warren was well-prepared, articulate and disciplined. She also often showed great empathy for those who told their personal stories at her campaign rallies. This made her dismissive attitude toward those who, with reason, shied from embracing her agenda all the more upsetting. Her critics deserved better than to be told they were either intellectually small or the stooges of billionaires. Warren didn’t deserve to win. Klobuchar did. Democrats should be asking themselves if sexism blocked her path to the nomination. They should also be asking themselves whether the dogmatism of Warren and Sanders made it that much harder for a smart, accomplished, reasonable senator to make the case that she was the right choice for this moment.
I definitely liked Klobuchar more than Warren, but the extremist have taken some control of each party. The democrats are going the way of the GOP. It won't be long before with get the democrat version of Trump get the nomination.
