EAllusion wrote:Warren faced a lot of sexist tropes in coverage of her. It's hard to know how much that hurt her, but it sure as heck didn't help.
I am sure sexism contributed to her loss, but there is no evidence that is was significant. If sexism was significant she wouldn't have been the front runner months ago. I doubt an army of Sanders supporters were attacking her gender.
That doesn't follow at all on several fronts. Sexism could've significantly depressed her numbers, but not depressed them enough to prevent her being a slight frontrunner among a divided field. Perhaps sans sexism she would've been polling 10 points higher than she was. There's no reason to presume that the highest she climbed in the polls was her ceiling if she were male. More importantly, the campaign is dynamic. Insofar as sexism hurt her, it probably did so the most when she became a frontrunner and started getting a lot of negative coverage. Because of the way she's coded, that coverage leaned pretty hard into sexist tropes very similar to what Clinton faced, so it's possible that sexism only significantly hurt her after she climbed in the polls. At the same time, if she didn't get negative coverage in the form of sexist stereotyping, it probably would've taken a different form because the media likes to tear down frontrunners. Because there are multiple causes interacting with each other, it's hard to disentangle the effects.
An army of Sanders supporters were calling her a snake. That probably wasn't a big factor in her loss, but that was a thing that existed.
EAllusion wrote: Because of the way she's coded, that coverage leaned pretty hard into sexist tropes very similar to what Clinton faced, so it's possible that sexism only significantly hurt her after she climbed in the polls. At the same time, if she didn't get negative coverage in the form of sexist stereotyping, it probably would've taken a different form because the media likes to tear down frontrunners.
Can you please explain. Was the media attacking her gender? Was the media saying that a woman can't beat Donald Trump? How was negative coverage in the form of sexist stereotyping? Was CNN, MSNBC, and other big networks doing that?
EAllusion wrote:An army of Sanders supporters were calling her a snake. That probably wasn't a big factor in her loss, but that was a thing that existed.
She didn't have to accuse Sanders of saying that women can't win, even if the accusation was true. She clearly did it for political points and will only hurt Sanders in the general election if he wins the nomination.
By definition a snake is "a treacherous or deceitful person," that is not a sexist attack. Warren was playing identity politics and the victim card.
Some Schmo wrote:I have to admit that watching Warren in interviews yesterday, I was a little sad.
Why? Should I be sad for not having a girlfriend? People say "Just be patient, be happy, and live your life, you will eventually have one". There is no need to be desperate for a female president, we will eventually get one. The US has all the time in the world.
What a strange take on what I said.
Should you be sad for not having a girlfriend? It depends on your circumstances. Based on what you've told us, you should probably seek help. What has that got to do with America's reluctance to vote for a woman?
I just said that I thought Warren was the most qualified to be President. I didn't say that because she's female. I said it because I think she has the closest set of skills needed for the job at hand. That's what I mean by "most-qualified."
I'm not desperate for a woman President, but it would signal a kind of progression. It's not about the woman herself, but what that move would say about our culture. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. This country is still behind all the other more developed countries.
That's all I was getting at.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:I have to admit that watching Warren in interviews yesterday, I was a little sad. I happen to think she was the most qualified in the field, but I didn't intend to vote for her, and it's because I'd fallen victim to the same thing I bet a lot of people are feeling these days: I'd vote for a female President, but I don't trust enough other people will. Trump has moved us backward in that regard (as with so many others).
After Klobuchar and Buttigieg dropped out, she was my next option.
At some point there should be a thread about how the two party system is derailing democracy. I'm fairly confident we'd have better candidates if both Trump and Sanders were not running interference in the Republican and Democratic parties respectively. But its understandable why someone like Sanders benefits from pursuing a major party nomination. It just means the candidates who better represent the party overall are clustered around a common set of voters while the outlier is typically representing a fringe constituency who only feels affinity towards them. The primary process isn't built for this problem. Were there four parties represented in November, we'd probably have better candidates still in the race as well.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
DoubtingThomas wrote:Do you have any statistical evidence that her gender cost her the nomination? How did Warren become the front runner in the polls some months ago? It is easy to blame it all in sexism.
I don't know what it is about questions like this, but something about it comes off as very irrational and incel-ish.
Men who whine that women have all the power have totally surrendered their own innate cultural power, in fine pussy fashion. If you don't see the deference paid to you for being a white male, you've given it away, and you've got nobody to blame but yourself.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:I'm not desperate for a woman President.
Good, I guess you changed your mind. I remember you once said America desperately needs a female president.
I probably did, but you still misunderstand my motivation. It's a statement about our culture, not because I think a woman would be especially awesome.
As far as actually getting a female President, it really depends on the woman. Although I voted for Clinton, that was out of self-defense. I wasn't very keen on Klobachar either (mostly because she always struck me as weirdly nervous about public speaking, which is not a good trait for a world leader. It doesn't instill confidence).
Some Schmo wrote:What has that got to do with America's reluctance to vote for a woman?
You once said America desperately need a female president and I was responding to that. You said "sad", so I thought you were desperate.
Are you having a difficult time distinguishing between my desperation and America's? I'll give you a hint. America's desperation is bigger.
Some Schmo wrote:Should you be sad for not having a girlfriend? I
You know what 2020 has been a lot friendlier. I have gone on some dates.
Good, man. Remember, if you want love, be lovable.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.