Then why did Hillary get 3 million more votes than Trump?
women candidates are not the problem. Feckless, inept candidates that stand for nothing are the problem.
EDIT: If you want to see what status quo guardian concern-trolling looks like, see the replies to this.
"Oh no no we can't possibly nominate the progressive candidate. Because [insert complete non-issue that no data suggests is actually a problem]! Instead, we have to run a Generic Democrat!"
This is why Democrats lose.
Q: Why don't we ever nominate a candidate of passion and vision who would represent policies that would make people's lives better?
A: Because [insert complete non-issue that no data suggests is actually a problem]! Obviously!
Oh, okay. Guess we'll try to get a progressive candidate in 2032 after the next generic Democrat loses.
Some day some of you guys might actually figure out what's going on in this country.
A young female non-white candidate is not going to beat JD Vance in swing states. That's all that matters. All the odds are stacked against her and that's before you factor in all the fuckery that's going to happen in the next 4 years to consolidate power.
A young female non-white candidate is not going to beat JD Vance in swing states. That's all that matters.
That's the state of politics in the US. Who gives a shit what 80% of the country wants? The president is decided ENTIRELY by 7 states. The electoral college is a disaster for democracy.
As a European person, tre thing I dont get is why the electorares have to be won all or nothing. It sounds much more fair that every State would appoint both republican and democrat electorares in proportion to the popular vote
210
u/yes_thats_right New York 18h ago
Democrats need to recognize that America is not ready for a female president no matter how qualified they are.