It’s a sad reality, but it’s true that there are a lot of racists and sexists in the US, so nominating a person of colour or a woman as your candidate really does damage your electoral chances.
I mean, a candidate as horrible as Donald Trump has a 100% win rate against women and 0% win rate against men.
It is spoon-fed to the Sheep as if that would justify keeping the same people in charge of the party that Force unwinnable candidates on us.
Racism is not the reason in the first place, but if it was it would not justify keeping the establishment in there.
The logic is too stupid to refute line by line. Somehow though that is what we are doing. The same people that chose Hillary and then Biden and then Kamala are going to choose the next one, and do everything they can to favor their choice. Including these super delegates which they still have.
I never said that skin colour or gender prevents someone from winning. What I am saying is that it is a disadvantage compared to running a white male candidate with the same views. Obama did not win because he was black, he won in spite of him being black (and given the Republican reaction to his campaign I think this is broadly agreeable). He won because he had a great platform, was inspiring, and the Republicans had just crashed the economy.
Nobody will refuse to vote for a white male candidate because of their gender or race. If he has good policy positions then he will receive support. White candidates get judged on policy, non-white candidates get judged on both policy and their skin colour. It’s less pronounced on the left because there are fewer racists and sexists here, but it still exists. We need to acknowledge and confront the fact that discriminatory attitudes force minority and female candidates to be better than comparable white male candidates in order to garner the same level of support.
I don’t make excuses for Kamala Harris’s positions. She was a bad candidate. But being a bad candidate doesn’t automatically cause you to lose, as Biden and Trump have proven. It is the combination of being both a bad candidate and a minority and a woman that is lethal to a presidential campaign in America.
Your comment espouses something that is fun to say and makes you feel righteous and correct when saying it but ignores reality. In particular, I point to Hispanic and Asian populations, which make up a large portion of the Democratic voting bloc, and of which a very large number are openly sexist. I am the son of Chinese immigrants, all of whom either vote Democratic or not at all. While my generation is notably far less sexist than my parents’ generation, my parents and grandparents still think that whether a woman is “biologically suited” to be president is worth discussing. It’s not just my family being an outlier either, since this way of thinking is actually pretty pervasive in the Chinese community where I live (Portland, Oregon).
Based on a false premise, Harris was universally unpopular with women and minorities and everyone else. Maybe that should just tell you that universally unpopular candidates are unpopular candidates and not their characteristics?
Being a poor candidate who is merely tolerated and not appreciated does not automatically cause you to lose. Most people also merely tolerated Biden and many swing voters in 2024 thought they would tolerate Trump despite his fascist tendencies.
It is the combination of being both a poor candidate and being a woman and being a minority that is lethal to a presidential campaign.
Quite off base. It is running as the status quo that was the deciding factor, the fact that you don’t know that yet does not speak well to your understanding.
It’s a sad reality, but it’s true that there are a lot of racists and sexists in the US, so nominating a person of colour or a woman as your candidate really does damage your electoral chances.
I mean, a candidate as horrible as Donald Trump has a 100% win rate against women and 0% win rate against men.
Hey remember when Obama won with the biggest modern landslide and came in with a supermajority in the senate?
The “aw shucks there are too many racists we need to be more racist” line is for racists who want racism.
It is spoon-fed to the Sheep as if that would justify keeping the same people in charge of the party that Force unwinnable candidates on us.
Racism is not the reason in the first place, but if it was it would not justify keeping the establishment in there.
The logic is too stupid to refute line by line. Somehow though that is what we are doing. The same people that chose Hillary and then Biden and then Kamala are going to choose the next one, and do everything they can to favor their choice. Including these super delegates which they still have.
Allow me to add some more nuance to this point:
I never said that skin colour or gender prevents someone from winning. What I am saying is that it is a disadvantage compared to running a white male candidate with the same views. Obama did not win because he was black, he won in spite of him being black (and given the Republican reaction to his campaign I think this is broadly agreeable). He won because he had a great platform, was inspiring, and the Republicans had just crashed the economy.
Nobody will refuse to vote for a white male candidate because of their gender or race. If he has good policy positions then he will receive support. White candidates get judged on policy, non-white candidates get judged on both policy and their skin colour. It’s less pronounced on the left because there are fewer racists and sexists here, but it still exists. We need to acknowledge and confront the fact that discriminatory attitudes force minority and female candidates to be better than comparable white male candidates in order to garner the same level of support.
I don’t make excuses for Kamala Harris’s positions. She was a bad candidate. But being a bad candidate doesn’t automatically cause you to lose, as Biden and Trump have proven. It is the combination of being both a bad candidate and a minority and a woman that is lethal to a presidential campaign in America.
Your comment espouses something that is fun to say and makes you feel righteous and correct when saying it but ignores reality. In particular, I point to Hispanic and Asian populations, which make up a large portion of the Democratic voting bloc, and of which a very large number are openly sexist. I am the son of Chinese immigrants, all of whom either vote Democratic or not at all. While my generation is notably far less sexist than my parents’ generation, my parents and grandparents still think that whether a woman is “biologically suited” to be president is worth discussing. It’s not just my family being an outlier either, since this way of thinking is actually pretty pervasive in the Chinese community where I live (Portland, Oregon).
It damages your electoral chances if you are trying to appeal to republicans.
But republicans do not vote democrat.
Based on a false premise, Harris was universally unpopular with women and minorities and everyone else. Maybe that should just tell you that universally unpopular candidates are unpopular candidates and not their characteristics?
Being a poor candidate who is merely tolerated and not appreciated does not automatically cause you to lose. Most people also merely tolerated Biden and many swing voters in 2024 thought they would tolerate Trump despite his fascist tendencies.
It is the combination of being both a poor candidate and being a woman and being a minority that is lethal to a presidential campaign.
Quite off base. It is running as the status quo that was the deciding factor, the fact that you don’t know that yet does not speak well to your understanding.
This comment does not speak well to your reading comprehension.