This election is not the time to test that hypothesis. You yourself even claim that women with any kind of power are going to be seen as shrill and that “our society doesn’t value women in positions of power.” If this is true, it means you are acknowledging that Warren has an inherent weakness as a candidate, and a significant one at that.
We don’t need to be testing. We don’t need to be taking bets. This is not the time for staking it all on a long shot. Obama vs. McCain was different. Trump is not John McCain. The stakes are much higher this time.
That’s all true, but there’s also value in breaking those attitudes down. That can only be done by confrontation, unfortunately, people being the jerks they are. There is also value in not letting the reflexive opposition have veto power over you.
I don’t either. But there are, as I think you know, *many *who use that as another way to say “uppity bitch”. That number includes a disheartening number of women. Yes, a female candidate does have an uphill fight, because of a number of rationalizations and simple id-driven emotions.
It’s a bad electoral strategy to attack a candidate’s supporters as opposed to the candidate himself. You are needlessly alienating people who might otherwise be on your side. I don’t recall the Sanders camp attacking Hillary voters.
‘HillBots’ was most common. The idea being that those of us who supported Clinton over Sanders were soulless corporate drones. The fact that Blalron doesn’t remember this says more about him than it does about the virtuousness of Sanders supporters.
I don’t recall hearing HillBots, but unless it was used here, I probably wouldn’t have noticed. I don’t post on other MBs or use social media. I think the only place I ever heard “Bernie Bros” was here.
I wouldn’t count Hillary out by any means. She’s the Rasputin of the Democratic Party. I’d give her a 30% to 40% chance of a serious bid to run, despite her current disavowals.
Harris is most likely to get the nod from the Party, though. The younger, progressive, identity-obsessed party apparatchiki are going to demand a black female, and a hard left winger as well. The older party hacks are going to have some serious issues with that and her electability, and will preach about the need to double-down on a “safe” (read: white male, or at least a center-left black male) candidate due to the overwhelming threat of another term by President Trump. It will get ugly.
Speaking of former First Ladies, Michelle Obama would actually have a pretty good chance if she entered the election. She’s still pretty well regarded by the Democratic center and even many Republicans, and is not seen as far-left as Harris.
I regard Michelle Obama well, and I respect her, and I would vote for almost any plausible candidate over her in the primaries. She was a good First Lady. That’s not a qualification for the Presidency.
Maybe a standardized cutesy insult name would have at least brought a sort of balance to the crackup; better than just letting the Clinton fan club claim the name “Democrats” for themselves. I may not remember every name I was calling Clintonistas in 2016, so maybe we did have one. Last week, when someone was telling “Bernie Bros” to go to Hell, I was thinking about this matter; I came up with “Clinton Kitten,” which may be even more dismissive than “Hillary Ho.”
I don’t know much about Kamala Harris, but I got the impression that the “far left” don’t trust her at all, and see her as too corporate. Unless the sites I was reading were fake news, which they may have been.
I probably wouldn’t mind Tammy Duckworth or Tulsi Gabbard, neither of whom seem particularly “far” anything. But they share two problems: they’re probably both too young and way too far outside the power structure to be taken seriously as leaders of the party; and the electorate does not put veterans in the Presidency if it can at all help it.
