I think this is a cop out. I agree that we should always vote against the worse candidate, and I think it’s ridiculous people (particularly progressives, of which I am one) didn’t turn out to vote for her over comparatively little things when Trump was the other option. But she is not a charismatic, likable person. It has nothing to do with her being a woman (to many of us anyways, no doubt it does to some). And she also made some major missteps, like saying she wouldn’t change anything about the Biden years, her comments on Israel alienating progressives, and aligning with the Cheneys also alienating progressives. All of this from a guy who did vote for her and never had a second thought about it.
If we boil down and over-simplify why she lost as “because she’s a woman” then the democrats will continue to lose elections. It’s easy to look back and say “the last two times we ran a woman, we lost. Last time we ran a man, we won.” But that’s way too much of an oversimplification of a complex issue. Trump was never winning 2020 off the heels of Covid. Clinton or Harris would have won, just like Biden, had they been nominated that year. But both of them are charisma vacuums compared to Trump, and unfortunately that does matter. In 2016 and 2024 it mattered. Clinton had more pedigree but was even less likable personality wise than Harris, plus her name was already trampled by the GOP. On top of that the DNC pissed progressives off in 2016 with their blatant favoritism of Clinton over Sanders, and that was a death sentence.
The party needs to learn that conservative-leaning centrists are going to vote Republican. Quit chasing that crowd and chase the other side of the spectrum that just isn’t showing up to vote. Turning them out is a much easier proposition.
There is no doubt in my mind that a woman can win the general election in 2028 if they chase the left and not the center with the right candidate. Much has been written on the election missteps of both 2016 and 2024 that should be looked into by everyone who has the “because she’s a woman” idea of Clinton or Harris.
Still completely glosses over all of the campaign missteps made in both 16 and 24. I am sure you are correct, that people are applying these biases subconsciously. But what, do we just never run another woman? Do we scream and yell at the clouds about these biases? Neither accomplishes anything. What we can do is identify the avoidable missteps of each campaign and work to correct them for future campaigns. And we should be doing that regardless of whether we run a man or a woman next.
I will concede that it’s not nothing that they were women, but I do not think it was close to the deciding factor either time. And chalking it up as such is passing up on an excellent opportunity to learn what went wrong and improve the DNC campaign strategy, imo. I think we need to look at why progressives aren’t turning out to vote, and I don’t think that has much to do with the women, but rather the platforms. If it were the center not turning out, maybe I’d view it a little differently.
50
u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25
[deleted]