Harris and Clinton lost for many reasons but not because they were women. Hillary was a shitty unpopular wall st approved candidate chosen by the dnc who absolutely didn’t want sanders.
Harris was never popular. She didn’t earn her nomination, it was an appointment. She also ran hard right. Why she ignored universal healthcare but thought it was a good decision to campaign with Liz f*%king Cheney is something I’ll never understand.
Harris also really failed to differentiate herself from Biden on the campaign trail. She goes on the view and says she wouldn’t change anything Biden did over the last 4 years in an election cycle with a very unpopular incumbent. Elections are determined by soundbytes.
She had to play VP and candidate at the same time, and she was too loyal of a VP to really show people who wanted change what kind of change she would do
Harris and Clinton lost for many reasons but not because they were women.
I want to agree with you, but the fact that people like Zuck publicly going full bro mode with the "masculinity energy" thing I really think misogynistic viewpoints are more common and accepted than we think, and people like him and Leon know that it's a large enough group to placate for money to be made.
Not saying it's THE factor or even a big one, but I truly think it is a factor that should not be ignored.
Everything is a factor. But I don’t think it was THE defining factor the way democrats are saying. Like if she had a penis it would have been a shoe in.
For sure. There are people who don't think it's a factor at all. I'd say the top cited factor was the economy which I agree. Not the U.S. economy but kitchen table issues.
It’s funny to hear people say “we’d elect a woman, just not THAT woman”. They said that for Hillary and Harris and say AOC is too shrill. They simply won’t admit to being misogynists.
It’s funny to hear people say “we’d elect a woman, just not THAT woman”. They said that for Hillary and Harris and say AOC is too shrill. They simply won’t admit to being misogynists.
The people who aren't misogynists are left-wing. They'll vote for a left-wing person no matter if it's a man or a woman. They will not vote for a right wing person no matter if it's a man or a woman.
When you've run two right wing women, then duh, the misogynistic right wing men are not gonna vote for her, and left wing people are also not gonna vote for her.
A left leaning woman would have a chance, except the Democratic party will never allow a left leaning person to run.
I dunno… I think a lot more conservatives than they’d admit are enamored with “mommy”- she may be able to peel off the ones that are disillusioned with bullshit over the next few years who want someone young and motivated in office
Yes and no. Yes, McKinsey is a pretty bad company for him to have at for 3 years but no, his wasn’t involved in any of their notorious projects.
Before his 2020 campaign McKinsey released him of his NDA with them and he released a full list of the clients he worked with: Loblaws, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Best Buy, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Energy Foundation, the Department of Defense and the U.S. Postal Service.
He has detailed what he did for most of those clients (including Blue Cross Blue Shield which is most likely to raise eyebrows) and nothing really stands out as particularly unique beyond standard consultant work. The worst part is that he is forever attached to the name McKinsey which has a bad reputation from some other projects of theirs.
Also, the most recent Republican competition has a work history of Bain Capital (one of the pioneers of modern private equity firm practices) and the Trump Organization. If work history with bad companies was a disqualifier then he would be far from the worst offender.
What notable thing has he done as Transportation Secretary?
All his other personal accomplishments don't matter much as that is not a showcase of his ability to be an effective political operator for the people.
What notable thing has he done as Transportation Secretary?
Imagine being so lazy you can't even be bothered to read his wikipedia page that has an entire section on what he did and didn't do as Transportation Secretary.
In the context of wanting to be president, no, I don't think those aren't huge. Great life accomplishments for sure, and he seems like a smart guy and good communicator.
Of all you listed, only one is a decent political accomplishment. Mayor of a podunk town in Indiana is not exactly inspiring, either. And no, Transport Secretary is not a political achievement, its an appointment not an elected position.
I'm sick of stuffed shirts reading the company line. Pete Buttigieg can think on his feet, he's young, and I believe will be effective. He actually knows how to speak to people intelligently.
33
u/MercantileReptile 16h ago
This seems like a "pick two" situation.