you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -7 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Were there other problems in Clinton and Harris than the gender, then? (Except them "lying" that Trump would use the army against US civilians, of course)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Clinton is a fuckin capitalist and Harris is a fucking neoliberal. Neither of them actually care about anything more than upholding the status quo. They are not working class or even for the working class.

    This all being said, status quo is far better than fascism, but we can do better.

    Basically, just like someone being a woman wouldn't make them a bad president, it would also not make them a good one. Having good policies makes you a good president.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Good luck finding a presidential candidate with good policies in USA.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You asked what the other problems with them were, not whether there was a good presidential candidate, i was answering your question

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    Were there other problems in Clinton and Harris than the gender, then?

    If it was misogyny alone was the cause, then why did harris lose across every single demographic of women? She lost across every single voting demographic of general voter except a 1 point gain in college educated white men.

    We have polling data, we could dig through it-- and the results must be a statistical understanding of a number of reasons. There wont be a unifying single smoking gun across this many voters and issues. We aren't that uniform of a group of people for that. Although there will be some that are larger than others, like Gaza, consumer prices, wage stagnation, and misogyny.

    Dems are failing to honestly analyze why we lost, just like they failed to figure out how we could win. So we're on track to lose again, and comments like the one you made show we arent making much progress-- or that we even have any will to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Uh... If the misogyny was enough to remove enough votes from them to allow the worse candidate to win, then obviously it was a decisive factor. Being a decisive factor does not equal being the only factor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No, it wasn't the decisive factor. The misogynists wouldn't have voted for Harris either way. The decisive factor was Harris failing to inspire her own base while pandering to the elusive "undecided voter" by propping up Liz Cheney, among other things. Don't get it twisted, Harris lost because she and her team were too incompetent to read the room.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    If the misogyny was enough to remove enough votes from them to allow the worse candidate to win, then obviously it was a decisive factor.

    Sure, but how do we put actual numbers behind that "if"?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)