Hillary won the popular vote, so the “you’re too misogynistic to elect a woman” take does not have a basis in reality. Also, you might have noticed that AOC is filling football stadiums in red states just by being willing to speak.
Kamala lost because people got poorer for four years under Biden and she very publicly affirmed she’d change nothing about his policies. Hell, she didn’t even put a platform on her website until two weeks before the election. Kamala was a legitimately bad candidate.
Kamala lost because people got poorer for four years under Biden and she very publicly affirmed she’d change nothing about his policies.
Well I think the problem is people perceived others as getting poorer or worse off but the economy was humming just fine and unemployment reached record low numbers iirc.
Like, in general terms, people did not get poorer for four years under Biden - but if that’s what people think, regardless of the actual truth, that’s what they’ll act on.
This among many other reasons is why I want Kamala to leave the governorship of California well enough alone. I don’t want her coming here and applying her Republican pandering to the state.
Whatever is the easiest descriptor in context. Kamala has a unique first name in politics, “Harris” is not. Hillary differentiates her from Bill, however you definitely could use either if trump is in context.
Likely to do with how they tend to campaign, for some reason most tend to be more chummy and try to seem approachable then their male counterparts. (Its still bullshit, though)
She also had a lot of whispering in her ear about how to run a campaign, including from Joe Biden who still thinks he would have won. That’s also partly the reason she started stronger then diluted her platform.
If Hillary or Kamala had been men they would have won.
Hillary won the popular vote, so arguing for misogyny in her case isn’t a reasonable argument. As for Kamala, no. She’d have lost if she had a penis too. Her campaign was a comedy of errors and she knew it. She was even caught on hot mic once expressing worry about her campaign’s ability to connect with young men. (Admittedly a tough thing to accomplish when you tell people you won’t change anything and young men are struggling economically and lack access to basic necessities in your country.)
The only way the Dems had a shot here was to hold a primary and actually select a seasoned, authentic candidate. Instead, they rigged it like they always do and just happened to pick someone extremely weak.
Or just break from the skeleton, call for an immediate end to the genocide of Palestinians, and keep calling the right-wingers weird, obsessive ghouls.
Hillary won the popular vote, so the “you’re too misogynistic to elect a woman” take does not have a basis in reality. Also, you might have noticed that AOC is filling football stadiums in red states just by being willing to speak.
Kamala lost because people got poorer for four years under Biden and she very publicly affirmed she’d change nothing about his policies. Hell, she didn’t even put a platform on her website until two weeks before the election. Kamala was a legitimately bad candidate.
Well I think the problem is people perceived others as getting poorer or worse off but the economy was humming just fine and unemployment reached record low numbers iirc.
Like, in general terms, people did not get poorer for four years under Biden - but if that’s what people think, regardless of the actual truth, that’s what they’ll act on.
This among many other reasons is why I want Kamala to leave the governorship of California well enough alone. I don’t want her coming here and applying her Republican pandering to the state.
Newsom is doing enough of that on his own.
Why is it that female candidates are addressed by first name?
Females like Bernie
Whatever is the easiest descriptor in context. Kamala has a unique first name in politics, “Harris” is not. Hillary differentiates her from Bill, however you definitely could use either if trump is in context.
Likely to do with how they tend to campaign, for some reason most tend to be more chummy and try to seem approachable then their male counterparts. (Its still bullshit, though)
She also had a lot of whispering in her ear about how to run a campaign, including from Joe Biden who still thinks he would have won. That’s also partly the reason she started stronger then diluted her platform.
If Hillary or Kamala had been men they would have won. If Kamala had been white I don’t think that would have been enough to get her elected.
But if Kamala had more than a hundred days to campaign, then she might have had a fair shot.
Hillary won the popular vote, so arguing for misogyny in her case isn’t a reasonable argument. As for Kamala, no. She’d have lost if she had a penis too. Her campaign was a comedy of errors and she knew it. She was even caught on hot mic once expressing worry about her campaign’s ability to connect with young men. (Admittedly a tough thing to accomplish when you tell people you won’t change anything and young men are struggling economically and lack access to basic necessities in your country.)
The only way the Dems had a shot here was to hold a primary and actually select a seasoned, authentic candidate. Instead, they rigged it like they always do and just happened to pick someone extremely weak.
Or just break from the skeleton, call for an immediate end to the genocide of Palestinians, and keep calling the right-wingers weird, obsessive ghouls.
She was a bad candidate in 2020, when she ran in the primary
She was, couldn’t even beat Tulsi Gabbard.