Ms. Goldberg:
For the love of heaven, can you finally practice what you preach and let each of these candidates run on her own lights, not try to twist them into a cabal of females or as a representative of righting some longstanding sexist inequity? Your eagerness to group them together has the same level of insight as calling them all "gals."
Okay, I admit that maybe it's a generational thing. I'm one of those female, second-wave feminists you've heard tell of, and I find it beyond galling that any candidate for anything should be publicly promoted--awarded major points--on the basis of gender. ANY gender.
And worse, the differences between, for example, Kamela Harris and Elizabeth Warren are significant. If two male candidates had such differences, you'd never cast them into the same basket. So . . . ?
And guess what? I'm pretty sure that there's just as strong a racist current running through the electorate as there is a sexist one. So how did a young black man with a Muslim father, a middle name the same as the Iraqi dictator, and a surname that rhymes with Osama get elected? It wasn't because racism disappeared or because voters thought it was "his turn." So a woman candidate will face sexist obstacles? Really? Move on.
Why not use your well-paid position to help illuminate--fairly--the records of the candidates, and help the readers help the country, while recognizing each candidate as a distinct individual. Isn't that the point of all this?
26
My choice is someone no one is talking about: war hero Senator Tammy Duckworth.
4
The only woman who how could have been beat Trump, was Hillary Clinton, and unfortunately she came up short, Kamala Harris will never win the democratic Nomination...
4
Not a chance. Trump has so poisoned the electorate that only a white male has any chance of defeating him.
It will be 20 years before a women or a black has any chance at all
4
Trump is salivating at the prospect of running against a woman again, better yet, a progressive woman and even better a woman of color. He knows exactly how to harness bigotry, misogyny and an apparent need in rubes to vote against their own best interest. I'm afraid to say, if Dems run a woman again, millions will "hold their nose" and vote for Trump for a second time. Our only hope is Beto. Sure, he's a progressive -- but let's not pretend that Trump (or his brainless base) adheres to any ideology; all he cares about are appearances - specifically his own. It would eat him alive if he had to run against Beto. Beto is everything Trump isn't yet wants to be -- young, handsome, smart, slim and sporting a thick mane of hair. As we know, Trump constantly projects, and against Beto, he'd obsess openly and compulsively remind us that he's an old, fat, stupid, bald man.
2
And the misogynist, birther, racist hatred-spewing machine is already in full gear. I am exhausted.
9
Well, George W. Bush wrecked the country pretty badly, and it took a black man to save it. Now on to the women . . .
6
Yes, to the deep-seated misogyny Goldberg outlines. You only have to watch one episode of the wildly popular Family Feud to understand a large section of America's views about gender: from the sexist questions, to the producers' salacious translation -- women-as-‘hos’- men-in-strip-club answers -- to Steve Harvey's revolting 7th-grade-boy boob and booty riffs. That said, Hillary Clinton *did* win the popular vote. As did Al Gore. The real issue is with the Electoral College. 538 people elect the president through an antiquated system that has been further corrupted by gerrymandering. In 2020, we might, in fact again vote to put a woman in the White House, but the system, designed by men, is rigged to defeat her.
10
Identity politics ... ugh.
It's morally objectionable to list broad brush negative traits of any race, group or gender, except white men. Got it.
I actually think a large number of citizens don't care whether the candidate is male or female.
What many of us want is someone with intelligence, integrity, knowledge, relevant experience and some common sense. Clearly tump must go.
But some of those who already announced are clearly light weights.
If you only vote for someone whose gender or color is like yours, and not based primarily on character and relevant experience...and who actually has a reasonable chance to win -- the dems may well not win.
The candidate in my view needs to focus on issues of central importance to the vast majority: universal health care, jobs, preserving social security, education costs and retraining opportunities, environmental protections and addressing climate change, higher taxes on the rich.
And stop tilting everything for the benefit of the corporations & 1%.
Man or woman, most of us would likely vote for such a person. Focus on that with an experienced, competent candidate running and the dems will probably win.
9
Will a man or a woman win the popularity contest to become the next leader of "the leader of the free world" - without being asked once whom they intend to appoint "Secretary of State" or "Secretary of Defense" if they win? I don't know - and you betcha. 'So over the absurd American system of government.
2
Right-thinking people, including many Republicans, don’t care about a candidate’s gender. They want the candidate who beats Trump to be a person of accomplishment, honest and consistent and without the baggage of corruption. Just being a woman is not enough.
7
Get out and support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact! If it was in effect in 2016 we would have a female president.
8
Too bad identity politics candidates may well cancel each other out, especially in the SEC primaries which gave Hillary the last nomination, because blacks were so easily conned into believing Hillary's lie that Bernie was less on the side of blacks than she was. Exit polls in the Rust Belt, of course, proved that far more than enough white voters than would have been needed to beat Trump would have voted for Bernie if they had the chance. It's interesting that Bernie's current favorability among blacks is much higher than Harris', and even more so vs. Booker's.
5
I have watched her in hearings. I will vote for her.
5
I think we are definitely heading for a glass cliff. Just like a black president was elected to clean up disaster caused by a white president (two wars, housing bust, bail-out, recession...), a woman president will be elected to clean up the disasters caused by a man.
6
It will be the Democrats’ election to lose. The vast majority of the population despises Trump. That’s only going to grow with each passing month between now and the election. Yeah, yeah. I know—lots of trump lovers out there. But they are vastly outnumbered by the rest of us. And we are pretty upset. See recent midterms for proof....
4
So, per Ms Goldberg, voting for a woman will help us heal from Trump, but am I to assume that voting for a male will not? Silly
10
The Senneca Falls Convention in 1848 claimed suffrage for women. Seventy two years later the men of congress and two thirds of the male legislators of the several states ratified the Nineteenth ammendment.
I am not arguing that women today be patient for another 75 years. Rather, I believe that they will achieve their just objective only by winning in the electoral college. The woman who becomes the presidential candidate must not be “the woman’s candidate”. She must be the “people’s candidate”.
That means that the provocative politics of the radical feminists who believe all men are “patriarchial chauvinist pigs” must be disavowed. Their approach might win in deep blue congressional districts and liberal states but it is unlikely to elect a woman in a national presidential election.
The electoral college system favors small rural states. A plurality of those states are deep red.
Thus, the successful woman presidential candidate must appeal to a majority of the American people. She must master the political process and win in a national election that favors those who ,perhaps subconsciously, emotionally oppose and fear powerful talented women.
The history of the defeat of the equal rights ammendment and the betrayal of the 14th and 15th ammendments by Jim Crow confirm how difficult her election will be .
3
“Democrats fall in love ...”
Can you complete the rest of the sentence?
2
It's a wider issue than beating Trump, crucial tho that is.
Michelle Goldberg must now analyze this--- per an Atlantic article: “Compared to other nations, the U.S. lags in promoting women leaders.”
(like we lag other nations in health care for all).
CNN' has a long list: “All the countries that had a woman leader”, per the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap report.
Many countries have had a larger % of women in their legislatures than the US.
There must be some unique factor in our political culture. Is it related to the money/power equation?
Contrary to our idealization of our democracy, it’s obvious big money rules our politics more than in other capitalist democracies. Does this translate into a power imbalance affecting both gender and economic inequality?
Look at Trump with women, money, power, dominance, egotism---the whole syndrome in cartoonist proportions.
Maybe our big money politics doesn’t set out to deliberately block women from being nominated. But in nations with more women leaders/lawmakers, their politics is not so strongly financed by corporate donors/lobbyists, like in the US. There must be some common factor underlying this difference. So we argue about unfairness to women, and ignore our unbalanced politics generally.
A large pool of women in lawmaking, leads to more potential presidential candidates. When a country uses big money power to block political voices, its politics becomes unbalanced in favor of big power.
2
The GOP would relish a California politician of any gender on the opposition ticket. In 2016, Clinton's popular vote advantage of 2.8 million came exclusively from two states, California and New York. A lot of good that did her.
5
I love how the NYT comment picks are mostly about cats and their political predilections. We need more of this and less about Trump.
4
A woman already won in 2016, it's the electoral college that needs to be vanqished.
12
Ms. Harris may be a nice person, but.....
Joe Biden in 2020!!
2
The Democrats are toast in 2020, unless they nominate Joe Biden or a clone a Barack Obama. Sorry...
4
Clinton ran on identity politics.
Obama ran on the issues.
Clinton lost, twice.
Obama won, twice.
Any questions?
7
@Bill
Not quite true. It's no coincidence that Obama's "Dear Colleague" letter was released the same day he announced his re-election bid. His re-election campaign was based primarily on identity politics:
"...the Democratic defeat in the 2010 midterm elections focused Obama's attention on how identity politics could rally his base. This model had worked well in one of the few major Democratic victories that year, the Colorado Senate race. So the administration took high-profile positions in favor of marriage for same-sex couples, permitting "dreamers" to remain in the United States and mandating contraceptive coverage in Obamacare. The "Dear Colleague" letter, which appealed to feminists and campus activists, reflected this broader campaign agenda - except that, unlike these other Obama initiatives, it initially encountered no legislative criticism."
*****
* "The path to Obama's "Dear Colleague" letter,
https://reason.com/volokh/2017/01/31/the-path-to-obamas-dear-collea
What's breathtaking about this thread is the huge number of self-righteous comments from men instructing us not to take gender into account when we vote. Thanks, guys.
10
I get it. I am a White male. That makes me evil.
And we thought that PROFILING was wrong.
8
Ms. Goldberg asserts Trump's win was due to misogynist attitudes. He won because he won the electoral college by appealing to Americans, male and female. Your lightweight female candidates, who have no qualifications other than their gender, will fail.
6
He appealed to low information voters by and large. Those people will not vote for him next time, if he’s the candidate.
4
Trump's win was not due to misogynist attitudes. He won because he won the electoral college by appealing to Americans, male and female. Your lightweight female candidates, who have no qualifications other than their gender, will fail.
2
from your lips to the gods' & goddess's ears
1
Following the blue wave of women in Congress a woman running could not loose; if qualified; although trump skipped that need. Lets take the WHITE HOUSE, SENATE AND HOUSE......with many women.
2
I had a cat who was quite liberal until she was spayed.
After that she was a staunch conservative.
2
Im all for tar and feathering a green party candidate that doesnt bow out after the primaries. Regardless if they are man, woman, or cat.
3
Great article. If I was an American I would vote for a woman just to see the Trump reign overturned by the first female president of the US.
7
There is no male resentment about women. There is no insecurity about sharing the stage because women have always shared the stage. There will be women presidents. Soon. Next time or the time after that. Relax and let's stop pretending we all hate each other. This is getting very silly.
9
As momentous as the first female president would be, she cannot run on an identity platform any more than Barack Obama did as a black man. The only thing that matters to the majority is the economy. Hopefully the dems will not hang themselves on social issues that are important but don't win elections.
9
Why are you quoting poll numbers? Don't you remember their failure to predict in '16?
More to the point, the first woman elected president in the US will be a Republican -- if the Republicans are smart enough to run one.
The Dems should run a female as VP and, if they can find one, a respected general for president.
The sexism in the US is still super strong, maybe as a backlash against the putative power of women in our culture (eg, find a sitcom where the woman is the dumb one and the man is smarter. You can have "dumb" women like Lucy or Peg Bundy, but then the husband will be even dumber.)
The only way everything from racism to economic inequality has a chance of being solved is to increase the participant of women. This is happening at the congressional level, but for president?
I don't trust Republican women, much less men, who voted for Trump. I think they'll do so again, particularly if a woman heads the ticket. As is quoted in the column today, running a woman who cost a few percentage points. And we can't afford that.
1
Not just to "vanquish Trump," but to vanquish the ignorant, right wing base, with their underlying threats of violence, that needs to be brought down once and for all.
5
Sexism is *exactly* why democrats cannot win with a woman at the top of the ticket. A female candidate will be treated just as shoddily as Hillary was, and the trxmp base will eat it up. A white male will deflate all of that and leave the right wing scrambling for something to say. And those on the fence will go back to the democrat.
Democrats, *this is not the time* for symbols. No more moral victories. No more feeling good about yourselves rather than winning.
This is what's at stake: trxmp 2020, pence 2024, pence 2028, SC 9-0.
You may get your female president someday, but don't count on it being a democrat.
5
Hillary Clinton supporter here. There is no way on God’s green earth that I’ll vote for Kamala Harris, or any other freshman Senator, for President,
Is it too much to ask for a reasonable amount of experience before you go for the top job?
8
Glass cliff - two words:
Theresa May.
Nuff said.
1
Goldberg makes a good point about the country in such wreckage that voters might elect a woman to clean it up. In 2008 the economy had collapsed and the country elected Barack Obama, prompting satirical outlets like Mad to say, "worse job in US goes to a black man".
Women have always been fixers - for their families and their communities. It is not a stretch to see a woman as fixer writ large in 2020.
2
The rage and empowerment of women notwithstanding, I’m not betting on the future. I have enough optimism left that I think there will be one, but trump’s reign has been terrifying. Bad enough that he got elected, worse that the Repubs haven’t reeled him in, yet.
trump is a virtual dictator at this point. He has ripped apart the fabric of the democracy. There are several ways that he might be stopped,but the principals aren’t acting. So the mentally ill man continues.
I went to college in the 70’s and was buoyed by the uppity talk of women’s ascension. I went to medical school believing that.
But gender inequity seems to have deep roots.
A woman was the first power in all men’s lives.I think that most men are deeply afraid of a woman ever having power over them,again. And women collude w/this. I saw this play out a lot in doing psychotherapy for over thirty years w/ couples and both sexes.
I was gung-ho women’s rights; I worked hard to get to where I thought I wanted to go.It turned out,tho’ that sexual harassment & discrimination took a lot out of me;so much so that I was finished before I started.
I was part of a generation of women in transition from the bad old days to the great new ways,which haven’t arrived. The gender gap is wider if possible, pay inequity is profound & women’s groups splinter over identity politics, while a male toddler bashes the WH.
I’ve spent altogether too much time in conflict w/male power. But, hey!! I did relatively well. For a woman.
2
'Chameleon-like', that's a sharp elbow, and the race is not yet started. Sad.
2
I want a woman to become president. I don't want her to be burdened by the words "vanquish Trump." Women candidates should not campaign in context to this Cretin, as if he matters in her plans for a more just nation. Donald is a corrupt bully, and politicking in context to him soils everyone, and only Trump will enjoy it. All Americans of good conscience should work to unseat him. I want our woman presient to be burdened by the duties of being president, and the onus of keeping her own promises to work for the welfare of the American family -- its health, prosperity, and necessary transformation away from the false "nuclear" ideal.
Goldberg is insightful, but this column does not consider successful chief executives elected by popular vote by societies that are similar to or more patriarchal than the USA in 2019. How does Goldberg's chauvinism thesis apply to female candidates that succeeded in India, Pakistan, the UK (two Prime Ministers) and one elected and repeatedly elected in Germany. Does this relate to the particular candidates or the patriarchal societies that elected or re-elected women? I do not believe that it is the candidates. I believe that a woman could win in the US election now and probably will.
1
Maybe buried in these comments is one on the dismal turnout. More people stayed away than voted for either candidate. The Russian propaganda may have influenced some people, but I doubt that a third of the electorate was so influenced by the Russians. I think many the stay-always were not impressed by either candidate.
I didn’t like either candidate, but I figured that Clinton would know a lot more about governing than Trump would. And she would probably have a large range of news sources and advisors, many of whom would not parrot her views.
I did assume that I would agree with her more than I would agree with Trump. How right I was.
In 2020, please, please vote, no matter who you favor.
2
I do not believe the results of the Cassino study. The effect is so dramatic that I question the researcher's methodology which he barely discusses in the Sage publication Michelle links to.
To believe that a simple-minded little prompt -- "sometimes women make more money than men" -- would prompt an instantaneous 24-point swing in men's political choice beggars belief. These men had no set opinion before being called? Really? Do you know how hard it is to cause a 24 point swing in people's opinion on a high-visibility event like a presidential race? And presumably most of these men *already* were making more money than their wives or girlfriends (given the pay gap), so presumably wouldn't feel threatened by such a question (and would have no need to lie about, despite the author's contention).
And let's talk about sample sizes. Michelle says 694 voters were polled (though I can't find that number in the article she links to). So that means 350 men, who were split into two groups, or 175 each. Pretty small populations to register meaningful differences. (And did the author give the confidence interval or the significance test? Why, no.)
Until he proves otherwise, mark this bit of social science research down as junk science.
I'm not looking for "A Woman to Vanquish Trump," I'm looking for the Dem. candidate who has the best chance to vanquish Trump.
Get real.
4
I have three cats and a dog. Two are independents. I'm pretty sure one is a Republican. He's constantly harassing one of the independents. The dog is probably a liberal. He protects the independent from the Republican. True story.
The response to this president is equally repulsive. One hopes there's not some misconception that his critics occupy any moral high ground. They do not.
1
When thinking about the role of sexism in US presidential elections, it should be noted that Hillary Clinton lost to two men--Trump and Obama.
I'm white, male, with origins in the working class and now middle class, and I'll vote for any woman running against the Gropenfuhrer and will canvass for her.
3
I'm counting on the fact that however dire things become, at some point people's survival instincts kick in and since the beginning of time, if there is one symbol that represents the survival of the species, it is a woman.
Granted that can create resentment or, as my freshman psych professor put it, basically women can give birth and thus men unable to compete on that level, were compelled to go out and prove they were more than sperm banks. If anyone doubts that narrative, consider the lengths that social conservative men go to control women's bodies.
Still, in the face of the most contemptible version of toxic masculinity displayed by a modern president and the poisonous effect his demented reign has had on the country and world, it seems entirely possible that the sane still standing will be naturally drawn to his polar opposite, a talented, highly competent, intellectually grounded, experienced woman with the full range of the human emotions our current president entirely lacks.
Frankly, I don’t care if the next 10 presidents are all male, or all female, or all white, or all black, or all from some other race, or straight, or gay, or any combination of all those variables. All I want is for the next 10 presidents to be the BEST PEOPLE for the job!
What happened in the past was reprehensible! But when 2020 rolls around on Election Day the voters will have to vote for the “here and now” and hopefully pick the best person to lead our country of 300+ million people...no two the same and with 300 million different opinions and lives!
I HATE identity politics. And the only identity that concerns me is quality of character and ability.
2
I wish Ms. Harris well though I don’t know one thing about her. Let’s hear and see her in the first debates this summer.
1
In my opinion Tulsi is a nonstarter based on her early LGBT views, Warren is a retired and Gillibrand is a political social climber.
My money is on Harris and Klobuchar.
1
Latest PPP polling shows Trump losing to seven top Democrats, both male and female:
"Trump gets just 41 or 42% in head to head match ups against 7 likely Democratic candidates for President. He trails Joe Biden 53-41, Bernie Sanders 51-41, Kamala Harris 48-41, Beto O’Rourke 47-41, Elizabeth Warren 48-42, and Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand each 47-42."
If a woman captures the Democratic nomination she should not expect to be swept into office by women voters. Many women prefer male over female bosses. But Trump has done enough damage to this country to have lost the confidence of both sexes. I expect many women who voted for Trump to vote Democratic regardless of the sex of the nominee. To say women will vote for women because they are women is to marginalize and trivialize the intelligence of women.
1
Ms. Goldberg, I find the paragraph copied below truly objectionable in the way it slyly undercuts Gabbard. I have no favorites among them but I strongly object to this kind of writing.
"On Monday, the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, Senator Kamala Harris of California announced that she’s running. She joins Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. (The chameleon-like Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, is also running; she’s a onetime darling of the Sanders left who now says Democrats need to compromise more with Trump.)"
2
I don't know if gender is the real issue here. Trump is just an unpleasant, mean president, who has bad manners and acts like a narcissist. I tend to favor Joe Biden, who is nice, has nothing to lose, and has sufficient grace to make fun of himself. I'd favor Hillary, too, if she chooses to put herself through the wringer again. A thing that worked for two very successful Republicans is being nice. The two successful Republicans are Ike and Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately for the Republicans I do not see "nice" on their horizon this season.
1
So when the three currently declared female Democrat Presidential candidates find that there are not enough like minded ideological left leaning voters to sweep them to victory, will the cause of their defeat still conveniently be labeled “sexism?”
2
Here's a novel idea - how about we elect the individual who is interested in serving the majority rather than the fringe and special interest groups??? How about the person with the most votes is installed in office??? Who cares if that person is a man or a woman.
3
I find the whole "women taking control" thing ironic, condidering how women in key states abandoned Hillary, or voted for Jill Stein, or didn't vote at all. I would not be so sure that 2020 will be the year of the woman.
We all knw Trump was shady. The whole mess was avoidable except for the women who "just didn't trust Hillary."
What excuse will the come up with this time?
4
I am taking the title 'May the Best Woman Win' literally and apply it across the board, to both male and female candidates alike.
Talking of stereotypes, Trump is more of a woman than any other man or woman : he is petulant, prone to emotional responses, sticks to his viewpoint irrespective of any logic or reasoning, does not believe in an equal partnership, screams 'murder' at the drop of a hat, considers himself misunderstood all the time, paints himself as a 'victim' of hate and spite...
So be it female or male candidates, 'may the best man win'. That way, Trump does not stand a chance.
If history holds true, a Democrat should be elected in 2020, and it is possible it be a woman or person of color as Trump has/will become toxic. As we know, the Republicans destroy the economy and then a Democrat is elected to fix it. When Obama was elected, I marveled to my spouse that not only was a black man going to have a seat at the table, he would sit at the head of the table. My spouse responded: "yes, and the cupboard is bare." So it will be in 2020.
I don't like what I'm about to write, but it's true:
If the Democrats nominate a white male from the heartland under the age of 65, Trump will lose.
Every parameter mentioned that is not met will increase the chance of Trump winning. Sure, he will lose the popular vote, quite possibly by 5 million or more, instead of Hillary Clinton's margin of just under 3 million. But Kamala Harris, as a woman of color from the bluest state, has only youth on her side. On his side, Trump has blood and soil racism, patriarchy, malignant intolerance masquerading as Christianity and an electoral college designed to defeat Democracy. If you want to see a different President on January 20th 2021, Kamala Harris is about the least likely nominee to get us there.
Please don't shoot the messenger.
Dan Kravitz
3
I read the news story Ms. Goldberg linked to about Tulsi Gabbard, after pointedly not mentioning her as among the PLAUSIBLE women candidates. It said that Rep. Gabbard thought that the Democrats are partly responsible for the shutdown impasse. In some circles, an opinion like this is probably heretical. However, speaking as a Bernie Bro who hasn't yet decided on a candidate this time, to me it doesn't seem very far fetched.
2
As with many times a woman is elevated to power; she’s there because no man would assume the workload of cleaning up a massive mess. If a woman is elected, she will have to work twice as hard and fix twice as much than a man elected. I’ve seen it in corporate America, government jobs, and non-profits. Regarding a “baggageless” woman candidate; there will be no such thing for a long while. Again, a woman has to compromise much more than a man to be elevated.
2
Kamala Harris has a good chance of becoming the next president. She is attractive and charismatic. She is smart but not intellectual. Like all successful politicians, she is an opportunist, but not to the extent that Gillibrand and Gabard are.
Women have been discriminated against for centuries. This is an historic moment when women are uniting, expressing anger, and taking charge. The Republican party is destroying itself. Just compare the number of Republican women in the House to the number of Democratic women: 10 to 120.
1
Let's remember that Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million but now sits in the WH because Republicans played the long game and gerrymandered districts and rigged the Electoral College. If the Dems don't fix our rigged elections and hack-proof voting processes in every state, we might as well save our money and move en masse to Mexico.
1
Citizens of the USA keep forgetting that this President is a "minority elected" President. He won the electoral college but did not win a majority of the popular vote. I will never understand why every story about him does not start with
"this president who lost the popular vote is a minority elected President"...
Oh god, this article has led people to discussing cats. This is what we've been degraded to. Well, if we're about cats then I'm about dogs. Dogs are loyal, steadfast and actually care about your needs.
But I digress. My real commentary is on a subject people will blast. And I don't care. This is not the time to be playing at politics in the "woman" sense of the word. Don't get me wrong! I'm all about a woman president given nations around the world have voted in a woman and they're not even at our, supposed, standards.
My concern is can Trump win again. Yes. He can. There's a system of misogyny in this country that even WOMEN but into. It's a myth on the media's part to try and dismiss these women as not "standing by their man" and "not voting because their man says it's not right."
Until the media digs deep into the woman vote of those who are very "traditionalists" who believe that a man's place is to be head of household, then give it up. You're fighting a losing cause. These women believe in the man being the man. What scares me is what does that mean...exactly? Does it mean he can beat them? Only they can answer and if their answer is 'yes', then so be it.
What I'd like is to see is something we will never see. Honesty.
The biggest mistake men made was giving women the power to vote. This just happened barely over 100 years ago. I’m sorry to say this, but women are incapable of running a society. No woman has ever founded a country or established a system of justice in all of human civilization. Women are all about survival for themselves and their children and nothing more. This is because women are child bearers. Their job is to bring life into the world and survive. They don’t contemplate bigger questions such as the survival of human civilization itself. It’s men who do that. It’s men who are the philosophers of the world. It’s men who established the Bill of Rights and our system of justice. But, since women outnumber men and have political power that they don’t deserve, they are now foolishly using it to ruin what men created.
What makes you think Trump is going to last that long? Looks to me that he is up high in the bowl but circling the drain nonetheless.
I was thinking that this group of women running for Potus--I actually can't imagine any of them going for the throat with each other. I think the women and men in the Dem race are going to have very lively debate, and of course differences in policy.
It brings me great hope to see all of these talented people who will (most likely) take the high ground.
Hope most of them will end up in Kamala's cabinet! Nice to know that we've got a great group to choose from though!
1
I understand that this is a real problem. So might it be better to ease in starting with a female vice presidential candidate?
As a progressive Baby Boomer, I read familiar sentiments in below posts. Over focus on identity will get us the nuclear nightmare -- a second term of DT. I am pleased with good choices in the Democratic primary. Those choices happened to be women with a male from the hinterland as VP. However, if the names happened to be Ralph Warren, or Aaron Klobuchar, I'd still favor these two candidates. I favor them because of the qualities I believe we need in the next president, not for their gender. We stress identity politics at our own risk.
I am very frightened by the study quoted here. All he needed was about 80,000 votes.
Glad to see more women getting into the fray. Men have been in charge like forever. What have they done for us lately? Most men don’t have the sense to listen to the wife and stop the car and ask for directions.
2
I wait for the day when an article like this is unnecessary. The US is one of the few democratic countries that has not had a woman leader. I do not know who or what is to blame for our numerous biases against women as leaders but we have got to progress. Enough is enough!
7
A number of women competing for the Democratic nomination is no guarantee that the best woman will win, only that the woman who gets the most delegates has the strongest chance against the man who gets the most delegates. In the hypothetical contest between Clinton and Trump described, how many of the men said neither or declined to vote at all? It will be horrifying if we are again forced to make a choice between two candidates, both of whom the majority of Americans view negatively.
3
@Guy Cabell
"It will be horrifying if we are again forced to make a choice between two candidates, both of whom the majority of Americans view negatively."
What would be horrifying is if we made the wrong choice again. Because we will have a choice just as we did in 2016.
1
I live in Hawaii, and though it was a footnote in Ms. Goldberg's article, I must concur with her characterization of Tulsi Gabbard as a political chameleon. Here in her home state that description is more true than Ms. Goldbergs could ever have imagined. If Tulsi wants to give up her House seat to run for President, let her, and allow a better qualified and more honest person take that seat.
Hawaii deserves a Representative in the mold of Patsy Mink or Senator Mazie Hirono, who has finally found her voice, (and what a voice it is).
And so does America.
6
I urge voters to take a close look at Tulsi Gabbard - the progressive with military credentials, who gets undue flag for non-interventionist peace positions in the Middle East and an outdated notion about gay marriage she long has updated, Bernie had recruited her and she is a tough campaigner.
2
Hard to believe we're living in the 21st century now.
The insertion of trump as president of the USA is still a real head-shaker.
The recent election of more autocrats across the globe and the emboldening of the ones already in power does not bode well in the long run for the human race.
All of that money and power concentrated into the hands of a few and nothing to make things right for the planet or the rest of the people.
3
I think we need a candidate - male or female - who can clearly articulate the case against the disaster of Trump. That candidate has to also be able to throw back insults with the best of them - in such a way that it either mocks Trump or ridicules him. That candidate must also deliver a clear message for attracting voters, and point out the flaws and inadequacies of the current regime.
We need the right message and messenger. He/she must be tough. He/she must be convincing about the wrong direction in which the country is heading. It's about that simple.
5
In Cassino's small sampling, I wonder what age these guys were. I'm sure that most were over 45.
Here's why:
My thirty-something son-in-law was asked by his male colleagues how he could afford such an expensive home. His simply reply: "My wife works and makes more money than I do!"
Their responses weren't, "You must feel emasculated!" Instead, he heard, "That's cool. Congratulations!"
The world is too darn expensive these days for men to worry about a wife making more money than them. You'll find the younger generations are no longer buying into the male "bring home the bacon" stereotype and are now welcoming the additional, and sometimes higher, salary. Shifting gender roles? Bring it!
I seriously doubt gender pay will influence their vote in 2020.
6
Clinton won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College because of too many Republican governors.
4
Other countries have been electing female leaders for years, without any seeming "moral outrage" from their male constituents. Why is our country so different?
12
@Andrea - good question... huge question
My first thought is a fairly large population that has basically a high school education at best and is deeply entrenched in a "faith-based" rather than rational and logical mindset. But I'm probably over-simplifying.
16
I think American voters are ready for a Woman President.
A lot of men and women who voted fr Trump, did so because they did not "like" or "trust" Hilary, not because Trump was a better candidate. If the Democrats put forth the best Candidate, who happens to be a woman and very qualified, people will focus on what she stands for, not what she looks like, or sounds like.
they will vote on what issues she stands for, what her record already says about her and proves that she is trustworthy.
Most voters have learned their lesson about protest voting against a candidate. We are now in the grips of the worst nightmare in this country. From Tax Reform, manipulating Voting Rights, Separation of Church and State, trying to do away the ACA, separating immigrant children from their parents, ruining our reputation within the world by leaving agreements like the Iran Nuclear deal, the Paris Accords and the Government Shutdown over Trump's need for a Wall that he pledged that the "Mexicans were going to pay for."
The Republicans have proven to the American People that none of them can be trusted with our economy, our freedoms even our jobs. The Government Shutdown lays squarely on their shoulders, but in particular Mitch McConnell's and Trump's.
They are two of the most shoddy human beings ever put on this earth.
I think any man with a healthy ego would vote for a woman. It is those men who are unsure of themselves who may pause
America is definitely ready for a Woman President
5
It amazes me that your country is only now, “ready for a woman President”.
Greatest Country in the world.......Lord god what a complete contradiction!
Get over yourselves! No country is perfect but your country is a mess on so many different levels.
1
I doubt she has a chance. If she can't come up with a better response as to why she wants to be President than "I love this country so much" then she might as well quit now.
Amy Klobuchar looks like the best candidate I've seen so far.
6
I like Amy.
In the 21st century, in nearly all other democracies that have elected electing women as leaders, the sex of the successful candidate has been a purely incidental aspect of their campaign. Present, yes. Obvious, yes...but played down. An implicit and not an explicit feature. That's because there are so many other things that are more important.
You have in President Obama a recent example of a candidate who fought on issues and values and vision and won and broke down barriers, but played down their significance because breaking sown barriers was the least important part of his message.
If I was an American I would judge my next Presidential candidates on their ability to give me hope by providing credible answers to these questions:
1. What steps will you take and what sacrifices will you ask Americans to make in order to combat the effects of gobal climate change?
2. What will you do to promote peace in the world and reduce the global threat of nuclear war?
3. What steps will you take to strengthen our democracy and heal a divided nation?
6
Whichever democrat gains the nomination, democrats and sensible independents must UNITE behind that candidate. If your favored candidate does not make it past the primaries get over it, you cannot sit out 2020.
14
Your article is either very poorly developed or deeply flawed.
Simply having a woman in office will do nothing in itself to heal the injuries of the current administration. First, remember that Trump didn't cause the deep division we are now in (although he has done much to stoke it). Second, we had a black president for eight years: did we heal during that time, or did we get more divided?
The first step in healing is to acknowledge the other side's position. To assume that a woman will automatically heal the nation not only begs the questions posed by others in this forum, but also denies all the people on the other side their positions, their feelings, their legitimacy. It doesn't matter whether you agree with them--it's a fact that they hold those opinions.
As a liberal very frustrated by the current state of affairs, I fear the assumptions and the rhetoric in your article only further emboldens Trump sympathizers, weakens liberal (and perhaps even feminist) causes, and digs us in deeper.
5
Michelle's last paragraph hits the nail on the head. I have been a feminist since my teens. I was raised in a fairly religious home but respect and regard for women was integral to my upbringing. Coming of age in the mid sixties I found myself in much agreement with the nascent feminist movement and abortion rights. I for one, am so ready for the slightly more than half of population to have their fair crack at governing. After the travesty of Individual 1, men should step aside. they certainly could not do worse.
1
@Keith Ferlin - It's not a question of male candidates "stepping aside". It's a question of voters choosing the female candidate.
1
I don't know that using Hillary Clinton as the representative woman in the poll necessarily extrapolates to all women. After all, she and her husband have decades of baggage. During the Clinton presidency, there was a sense among some that she was too involved in government policy for a first lady. She may have evoked a negative domineering wife image more than other women.
2
Sad fact is that the first female president will probably be a Republican. Having a progressive woman at the top of an increasingly radical left Democrat party might be too much for potential voters in swing states. Having a woman at the top of the Republican party is a better fit. Nikki Haley anyone?
1
The study they cite has a big problem and it may not be sexism. When they mentioned about women earning more than men, it certainly will bring up anxieties about the future, about the economics of being the breadwinner has been dying (only 15% of couples today has one being the sole breadwinner). The problem is this assumes because Hillary is a woman, and they are mad about women doing well, they 'punished her' leaves out another explanation. I don't doubt the question about women earning more triggered anxiety which the men who didn't get it wouldn't have, but what this leaves out is perceptions that may have nothing to do with Hillary being a woman. Saunders was/is from the left end of things and has been preaching a populist agenda for a lot of years, whereas Hillary was part of the Clintonian "New Democrat", pro business, pro NAFTA, pro free trade, pro outsourcing. A guy who hasn't had the anxiety ratcheted up might feel Hillary would be okay; a guy with Anxiety might be feeling like "great, she said sending jobs to China and India was good for the US, to Mexico" while looking at Bernie and saying 'he has always said that we need to take care of our own". I think sexism may be involved, but that 16 point swing to me is more than likely seeing Bernie as caring more about working men than Hillary, and seeing Trump as the outsider claiming to care about the plight of the working class. Sexism is just too easy a claim, and also lets Hillary too off the hook.
2
"Emasculation conservatism" -- what a profound, insightful label!
1
Here is the way I vote: Democrat over Republican. Woman over man. Color over white. And I am white, or at least I play one on TV.
KH gets points taken away for how she performed as AG of California. I'm much more impressed with Mayor Garcetti who only checks one box although he does have that Italian heritage. What to do, what to do.
4
Harris/Biden? Biden/Harris? Some of us would love to see it in the upcoming 2020 presidential election. The combination would cover a lot of "bases" except, of course, for the Trump base which will continue to be mired in the swamp.
4
That a given candidate for the 2020 Democratic nomination for President is a woman should not weigh heavily, if at all, in favor of one's supporting the candidate for the nomination. There are millions of US women who likely would be less good 2020 Democratic nominees and less good US Presidents from 2021 through 2025 than millions of men. For example, Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown likely would be better 2020 Democratic nominees and US Presidents from 2021 through 2025 than Sarah Palin, Marsha Blackburn, Gwyneth Paltrow and Condoleezza Rice.
However, arguably a candidate for the 2020 Democratic nomination's being female should weigh a little bit in favor of one's supporting her or him for the nomination. It might increase the likelihood of increasing the number of choices that can be made by some women and girls. And many of the people who are able to make the fewest choices are women and girls.
But it is much more important for the Democrats to elect a nominee who likely would win the general election, be a good nominee for President and, most importantly, be a good President. These things are more likely to increase the number of choices that can be made by those who can make the fewest choices than is the candidate's being a woman. For instance, Bernie Sanders likely would be a good President. And it's important for the Democratic nominee to win the general election. He or she likely would be a much better President than the Republican nominee for President.
I don't know about male resentment or female anger. The last two years has shown that the Democratic candidate has to defeat Trump and lead as many other Republicans to defeat.
2
Michelle Goldberg and others such as Senator Gilibrand come dangerously close to seguing the #metoo movement to something with the look and feel of racism, in all its narrow and vindictive variations.
The assumption is that one's gender is defining, overriding all other qualities. In fact subtitle of this article expresses this, that electing a woman would be an especially poignant repudiation of Trump; as if no male could have the same degree of visceral hostility. This implies, in some way, all of us are in the same "club" because of our Y chromosome.
There are some potential female candidates, such as Senator Klobuchar, who during the contentious Kavanaugh hearing, managed to ask pointed question, yet retain civility in the face of his rage.
It could be that the next five presidents are of one gender or the other. That should never be the overriding criteria.
5
In my retirement I am working as a school bus driver. Many of my co-workers are ex military or have sons and daughter in the military now, and they have never read the NYT's in their life. Trump initially spoke to their disgust with the establishment and they are not going to let go of that now.
I suggest the following things for candidates who want to speak to us:
1. Emphasize that All jobs are important to keep our society running. Be specific: truck driving , janitors , plumbers, school teachers, miners, etc. Also they deserve good pay and benefits.
2. Immigration is a hot button. Don't push it and when you do, don't say things like eliminate ICE ( too soon for this) and realize that the working class fears loosing their jobs re immigration.
3. For the most part the working class has no interest in gender or identity politics. Their interests are basic: jobs, benefits, health and childcare, housing costs. Like it or not Medicare for all is not clearly understood yet.
4. No high Highfaluting language. It marks you as an elite. Be clear, honest, and plain spoken .
I see few Dem candidates that are capable of doing this - basically their backgrounds are privileged, professional, and Ivy League schooled. Unless you are FDR, or JFK you will trip on this one. Truman, LBJ, Clinton, and Obama made it on this one.
Harris and Gillibrand are definitely out. Too many mistakes and too into identity politics. Warren - possibly. Al Franken - best possibility.
10
Very good advice and points.
My mom is a retired school teacher in small town NE. She always votes D, and momentarily couldn’t get over heeshock when the majority of her colleagues and friends voted for AND actively supported Trump in 2016. But then, all of what you say here became crystal clear.
I am a progressive liberal but sincerely hope the Dems can get their act together and pay attention to what *everyone* in the country needs from their candidate, from the next administration, if we are to end up with positive change. It’s all right here in front of us.
4
I disagree with the entire thesis. Any victor will begin the healing. I am interested in issues not identity. If a guinea pig could beat Trump I would vote for it. The end justifies the means including whether it does not cater to the loudest of voices.
5
I have no idea how this next election will turn out . . . but I do know one thing; We must NEVER forget the woman who has footprints on her back, having served as a carpet leading us to this point. She was in time with HER time, doing what was possible at that time. Skewering her for not doing enough, even though it was all she could do at the time, is disrespectful. We should all thank Hillary Clinton for serving as a shield that has allowed us to advance as far as we have come. Kamala, you owe her, and Michelle a debt of gratitude - as do we all . . .
17
@barbara jackson
Mrs. Clinton may have set back the chances of a woman becoming president by 50 years. Mrs. Clinton used her name and her husband to advance her career, and influence-peddle her way to millions and millions of dollars. All with a brazen cackle.
3
@barbara jackson
And here i thought that you meant Shirley Chisolm.
2
I would have no problem voting for a woman, but I'm not going to vote for a socialist or a woman who panders to blacks while calling me a racist because I'm a conservative white male, in fact, I would love to be able to vote for a woman of color, as long as she's someone like Condoleezza Rice.
5
democratic socialism is not socialism; it is the most sophisticated form of democracy today. the US is a backwards oligarchy precisely because of citizens like you. enjoy the downfall. you created it and are taking everyone with you.
2
@Big Mike
Would that be the same Condoleezza Rice who refused to listen to the warnings about Bin Laden planning to attack the United States? Or maybe the one who warned us about a "mushroom cloud" when there were no WMD at all?
You might want to think twice about that one.
2
This morning when i woke up at 430 am to start my day preparing lunches for the kids and the things I could not get to during the weekend. I stumbled across a truly disturbing video on YouTube which alleged that trump does not even work a full work day and comes into the office at 11 am. What a slap in the face to any hard working person holding down multiple jobs and the 800k workers furloughed and those called in to work gratis. the man who said he alone can fix it is on a permanent vacation it seems.
At risk pointing would vote for a rooster for president at least he would wake up at the crack of dawn instead of this useless infant we have as a leader.
The dems really need to play up his MIA qualities and make this an election about getting the job done
Pray tell what has this man done besides line his pockets and pick fights and watch tv all day?
Vote this loser out
11
@Sunnyside
Another irony of Trump shutdown is that he hasn't been able to play golf in Florida for several weeks. Maybe that is why he is so angry.
Well, at least we've saved some money on Trump's travel even if Melania is still using military transport.
1
Sorry; I don't know you or your life, but you don't get my sympathy by noting that your early- morning preparations for the hard day ahead include watching YouTube videos.
1
Changing the headline does not change the content.
Want a woman? Nikki has my vote.
4
Evidence of the power of the "glass cliff" concept in politics is quite easily found. Just look across the pond at Theresa May. The conservatives made such a hash of things with Brexit lies that they did the only thing they could do - hand the reins over to a woman. I only hope we don't do anything nearly as stupid as Brexit to convince enough men that we're at that cliff.....
1
Pull up some C-span videos ... see how you feel about KH.
3
I'd prefer that the women in the house drive the impeachment of Trump. I don't just want him gone, I want him humiliated and unable to cry election fraud.
6
When with this kind of sexism cease having a place in civil discourse? Not soon enough.
3
Male resentment, female anger... Let's set these aside and vote for the right person for the job.
7
I am reposting the core of a reply I made because I think no one will see it:
I think there is no chance the Republicans will put forward anything better than a less-disgusting dumb-whites-rule candidate -- Trumpismo has not yet burned itself up.
The next election is likely to be extremely ugly, even if Trump is not the Republican candidate. Given traditional gender roles and expectations such elections are hard for women to compete in -- consider what the public view would be of any woman who remotely approached Trump's depravity and childish play-ground-bully potty mouth.
Old-style campaigning had the candidate playing the dignified pol and his VP twisted the knife and slung the dirt. Modern Republican campaigning was created by Murray Chotiner (anybody else remember him? Produced Nixon...) the race- and red-baiting pitched from the top.
One criticism of the Clinton campaign is that HRC tried to run old-school, and Tim Kaine was Mr. Milquetoast.
If a woman gets the Democratic nomination, pick Melissa McCarty as VP. No kidding ...
"To see Trump vanquished by a woman would start to heal the injury of his repulsive reign."
After seeing how Obama's election (and re-election) unleashed a racist backlash, I am not that sanguine that a female presidency will heal us of sexism and misogyny.
8
Let's see- Trump beat a centrist white woman in 2016. Let's double down and run a liberal black woman in 2020!
Then we can complain again about that darned old Electoral College.
2
Trump's dirty work has been so extensive and smells to such high heaven that lazy white men will probably allow a Democrat who is also a woman to win the election and clean up their filth. The pattern has been unchanged throughout US history, although women weren't credited or elected. But nowadays, when GOP destroys with ignorance and bile and so many children are dying as a result of their toxicity, then smart, competent Dems, led by women of color, have to come in and clean up those foul men's foul messes, if possible, although the earth may not be worth saving at this point.
3
I would never vote for Kirsten Gillibrand in a primary, not sure about Harris or Warren. I would vote in a heartbeat for Amy Klobuchar. Saying that, in a general election I would vote for any of them as opposed to any republican. But especially against the so called man in the Oval.
Klobuchar has a lot of force and power in her personality, yet see is warm and kind. And really really smart.
It is beating a dead horse to say this again, but had Clinton poked t rump in the chest and told him to back off and stop stalking her on that debate stage she would have won. She didn't and she lost.
4
Agree. She should have pivoted suddenly so the viewing audience could see the look on his face.
1
@Bob Laughlin
What has Amy done besides being mid-West nice? I don't see her stirring any passion in the hearts of voters.
1
I am a 74 year old woman who was formed by the counter culture in Ann Arbor Michigan in the 60’s and early 70’s. I am a feminist. I supported Hillary Clinton. Since the election I have come to regard the progress of my gender, in terms of gender-equality, to have stalled from the time women got the vote in the early 20th c.
I regard the theme of Ms. Goldberg’s op ed piece to be both alluring and intensely troubling. She completely leaves out of her argument the fact that a majority of women voted for Trump. I do not observe any verbiage or action leading me to believe these women are now shocked or regretful about their choice.
I live in a red state. Coming out of the counter culture and for decades living and working within two other insular groups: artists and academics, I find it interesting now, as a retiree from my day job, to have a friend and some acquaintances who are ardent Tumpettes. Of course we never discuss politics. However, my vantage point has led me to be convinced of this reality: If we are to defeat Donald Trump and try to turn this country back to its rootedness in the ideals contained in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution we had better find a centrist male Democrat to gain the candidacy for our party. I believe the misogyny endemic in human life, and supported by both genders indicates that any of these fabulous women will suffer the identical fate as Hillary. The black women will suffer even more.
7
The country is already letting a woman work to save it: Nancy Pelosi. She is holding the line on Trump's infantile behavior, something no man seems capable of doing.
McConnell, the great tactician, is making a - risible - claim that he is powerless. He had plenty of power when it came to Merrick Garland's nomination, but now it has all vanish! Nonsense, of course. He could stop the shutdown in a minute by allowing a vote on the House bill, but he prefers to let the country suffer rather than force his troops to be on record as voting to end the shutdown. He is a real profile in cynicism and indifference to harm done.
Voters in red states who want the shutdown to end need to contact - daily - their senators to demand a vote on the House bill. Only when GOP senators fear losing their own seats will they suddenly discover that they "care" about you losing your home.
5
I deplore Trump, all he stands for and those who blindly support him. I think women are just as qualified as men and able to do any job with the right education, training and experience.
I would love to see a woman president of the USA. It pains me to say this, but this is not the election cycle to run a female Democrat. We need to get Trump out of there. A woman on the ticket as VP would be a great compromise and set her up to run on her own in 2028.
Perhaps by 2028 enough old, white men will have died and a younger, more diverse population could handle the idea of a woman in the Oval Office.
4
I would support any Democratic candidate except Gillibrand.
I wonder why don`t we hear of Senator Al Franken, he would make an excellent Presidential Candidate whom Gillibrand worked to get rid of to clear her path.
Her cunning work failed her.
8
"(The chameleon-like Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, is also running; she’s a onetime darling of the Sanders left who now says Democrats need to compromise more with Trump.)"
It's another NYT attack against Bernie Sanders. The NYT marginalizes candidates it does not favor.
Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Republican and Elizabeth Warren was an economic conservative. Are they chameleon-like?
Tulsi is arguing for negotiating a compromise; the essence of legislation in a democracy. We'll see who blinks when the lives of Federal employees are pawns in their game.
6
I’m so glad the New York Times has a thing for democratic cats . They are feline after all . Mine likes warm places and treats and is afraid of big aggressive people . Yes he’s a Democrat...Well that said my old dad who was once a staunch republican changed to love liberal women candidates. He would have loved Kamala Harris. She’s smart and I’d love to see her debate Trump .
1
@PSECK
My two cats, brother and sister, are also Democrats. They are friends who take care of each other. They don't hoard goods or judge others. They love us equally and care not a whit which of us is of which sex.
2
I'm glad we're going to be starting debates early. I want to hear something substantive and the group participating so far will definitely deliver on that. No more hand size bickering, name calling and trying to out-do each other on hateful immigration policy.
I want to know what they're going to do about Russia's aggression. I want to know what they're going to do to repair our trade relations around the world. I want to know what they want to do about health care. I want to know what immediate steps they're going to take on climate change.
We have so many issues to address and all we talk about are poor brown people who just want to clean our rooms and work on our farms. Enough with the silliness. Let the adults talk.
1
I'd happily vote for Tulsi Gabbard, though in this article she has not yet shattered the parenthetical ceiling.
1
Agreed. Tulsi 2020. Such a shame she is getting marginalized. Mika did the same thing on Morning Joe this morning when discussing female candidates. Just left her off the list!
The political world any presidential candidate will inherit, widely embraces strongmen approach to sovereignty. As history shows how women are treated in a "man's world", she will be a weak match. Respect for our political will has already earned ridicule by our current president's behavior. A deep ugliness (at least virtual technologic war) between super power Russian allies vs Chinese will continue to destabilize communications, transportation, and anything cloud-based. Her inherited government will be mainly defensive as our safety net is torn to shreds with prolonged shutdown decimating human resources for FEMA, Homeland Security, et al. Insurance companies will declare bankruptcy or just won't cover natural disasters. Oh wait, they already have those contingency clauses, as floods and fires accelerate. Public education will be equivalent to madrassas, with charter and anti-science schools stealing from public school budgets- we become ever more foolish. Public schools themselves glorified detention centers for kids coming from struggling homes. Our pollinators and ecosystem- especially in the US, India, Mexico, South America where toxic chemicals have been embraced, accelerates a course of rapid collapse (along with decreases in human fertility) Hopefully the candidate can deal positively with domestic unrest as our standard of living drops precipitously (for the majority that is, not the news spinning minority). May she be successful addressing these challenges.
1
No matter what, the eye cannot be taken off the prize in 2020 - removing the cancer of Trump from any kind of elected office.
All else is secondary.
1
Remember, a woman won the popular vote by nearly three million votes in 2016.
1
@Jiminy
A democrat winning a lot more votes in California and New York does not a president make.
This article blames Trump's victory on the emasculation felt by American males if they voted for a woman. But 52% of white women voted for Trump. What accounts for that?
It will be white women who will decide the next election.
3
The primaries need to be about determining which candidate is most likely to beat Trump. If it turns out to be about which candidate has the biggest cheerleading section Trump is assured of another 4 years.
We MUST keep in mind that the popular vote does NOT matter. What matters is how the candidates will fare in the 5 or so swing states Clinton barely lost and the 5 or so she barely hung on to.
It's all about the Electoral College.
I'm sick of the EC but we're stuck with it for the moment. It's unlikely enough states will sign on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in time, which would legally bypass the EC. But fellow readers, if your state is considering the compact, read up on it and if you like the idea, please let your Governor and State representatives know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
1
Please let's not fall into the "a woman is the only person that can fix everything" trap. None of the women that have announced their decision to run will succeed. There is nothing special about being a woman, they are quite capable of being just as wonderful and just as repulsive as a man.
If the Democrats really want to win the presidency they should run the candidate with the best chance of winning, period. Sex should not be a consideration.
In my opinion the one that should be running is Sherrod Brown.
7
@Paulie
Paulie....A. Sherrod Brown is running but his best quality is his wife Connie who you'd probably hate. And B. How do you know these women won't succeed? I'd say they're already more successful than 98% of most Americans.
President Harris has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?
Yes, a breath of fresh air, a new day after a nightmare.
One thing is certain, if the GOP nominated a woman this newspaper and its readers would trash her. Just look at the media response to AOC versus Sarah Palin. You might not like Sarah Palin, but she was the Governor of Alaska and prior to that she ran the largest state dividend board. And this paper destroyed her. Meanwhile, AOC who has accomplished nothing in her professional life is the most recent progressive celebrity candidate du jour over whom we are meant to swoon. Maybe Palin deserved it. Maybe she didn't, but let's be clear, the Times and its readers are all for a Democrat Woman, not any woman who disagrees with their world view. And more to the point, I might have voted for a woman in 2016 if the Dems hadn't nominated Clinton. You see, I look at the whole person, I am not voting for someone, anyone, as crooked, malevolent, and ultimately incompetent as Clinton. Male or female. PS --- can we all please relax on the electoral college. It's meant to do exactly what it did and no I don't feel like changing the constitution to suit 21st century political mores.
3
@JMR, Im sorry the irony is overwhelming. you couldnt vote for hillary because she is crooked, malevolent, and incompetent. So you voted for trump?
The supreme irony of the idea of masculine superiority would be a race between Kamala Harris and Nikki Haley.
1
The Electoral college will give Trump an advantage over a woman candidate and the economy may favor his reelection despite his chaotic presidency and being Putin's puppet. Evangelicals see a woman's place is the home and motherhood and a scotus pick to solidify the conservative court for decades will ensure Trump's reelection even if he does "shoot someone on 5th ave.". Campaigning in every state and ensure a high turnout of democrats ,the base ,independents and disappointed republicans are essential. Being able to debate and defeat Trump on TV debates could make the difference as Trump debates in bumper stickers and a confident clear headed opponent not intimidated by his bombastic bullying physical presence . Recall Hillary calling Trump a Putin puppet his retort was I;m not the puppet you're the puppet said like a school yard dimwit bully.
My main objective is to beat Trump and Pence, and get a Democrat into office. Period.
4
LOL. So a study of less than 700 voters in one state leads to the conclusion that ALL male voters were similarly influenced? That, uh, that seems slightly problematic.
But, sure, it's obvious sexism played a more important role than Hillary Clinton's long, looooooong history of alienating voters she absolutely needed to win (e.g. super-predators, vilification of her husband's numerous accusers, stolen valor sniper fire claim, touting the Reagans' HIV work, voting for the Iraq War, etc.) and catering to the DC status quo.
It's almost as if the NY Times' editorials make absolutely no effort to present persuasive cases and cater strictly to the leftist echo chamber crowd.
3
We need women to change the way this country looks at the world and how this country is viewed by the world. I love men but they are clueless. We need women, and not just one woman President to tell men that they need to sit down, talk, compromise and put their affairs in order. Now can you imagine President Kamala Harris telling Mitch Mc Connell that he'd better sit down and listen instead of kowtowing to his puppet President like he is doing now? I can. Go Women, Go Dems, Resist, Persist and Vote then out, the GOP I mean, not all men....
1
Thanks for the gratuitous swipes at "chameleon" Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders. What about "chameleon" positions of Kirsten Gillibrand (border control, guns) and Kamala Harris (mass incarceration)? Or a senator (Elizabeth Warren) with declining support in her home state? Of course, like Sen. Sanders, I'd even vote for Hillary over Trump.
Maybe a useful "push poll" before the 2020 election would be, Do multiple bankruptcies indicated a good candidate? Or, Would you vote for a guy who sometimes doesn't pay his employees, whom he constantly belittles and demeans? Not to forget, Would you vote for a qualified woman over an ignorant narcissistic lying extortionist bully? Been there, done that. Another old white guy.
2
I don’t mind that Kamala Harris is running. She’s way too far left to win the nomination, but kinda like Bernie, will introduce enough new ideas to get us thinking about what we really want out of the POTUS and the government.
And gender shouldn’t be a factor here. No one will deny the sweet irony of Trump losing to a woman, and that may happen and I would love it. It just won’t be Harris or even Warren. Keep an eye on Gillibrand instead.
Thank you for this piece. I voted for the first time in 1972 for Shirley Chisolm. I was 20 years old. Still waiting for a woman President. Clinton did get 3 million more votes, and please nobody tell me 'it doesn't matter'. It matters. I have been on the fence but as of today I'm working for Harris 2020.
2
Women vote in higher numbers than men and have done so in every presidential election since 1964. In 2016, 9.9 million more women than men voted. Women have voted at higher rates than men since 1980. In 2016, 63.3% of eligible female adults went to the polls, compared to 59.3% of eligible male adults. Even in midterm elections, when voter turnout is lower among men and women, women vote in higher numbers and at higher rates than men. CONCLUSION: Women have the power to put a woman in the White House, should they wish to. Putting all the blame on men is not a productive strategy, IMHO.
2
In the photo at the top of the article, it would have been nice to see more of the women who have announced their candidacy (as opposed to a large photo of one candidate). It makes this look, at first glance, like a Kamala Harris ad (nothing against Kamala Harris, who I admire).
1
I only want someone, almost anyone, who will beat Trump. I don't care if it's a woman, man, transgender, horse or a dog.
2
@Nick Adams Desperation is a lousy starting point.
2
Picture: Female Augustus Caesar?
2
Swing voters vote on personality, the person must have charisma, Obama had it in spades, Hillary did not. Reagan did, Gore did not. Queen Elizabeth II has it, her son does not. Fidel Castro, JFK and Hitler had it. Obviously our current leader, however foolish/scary has “it”. Goodness, morality, even sanity, is not questioned when the populace feels a charismatic pull.
I don’t know what exactly “it” is, but I know it when I see it. And, unfortunately, I haven’t seen much charisma in the current list of Democratic candidates.
5
Oh, God. The freaking campaigning never stops. Have we lost our minds?
3
I actually think Hillary had much worse problems than being a woman, though, of course, that was a problem for her. But Trump did not run his campaign on a Republican economic sounding agenda, it actually sounded even more progressive than Hillary (though of course that was all hood-winking). The Republicans did a beautiful bait and switch and had their own free trade agreements hanging around her neck like an albatross. Trump's fake infrastructure package was BIGGER! She had the problem of being a centrist which entails a failed "neoliberal" essentially conservative Reagan-like economic agenda, and people are through with that.
2
Why do you put Gebbard in parentheses? How wildly condescending of you.
1
I was born when the second wave of the feminist movement had yet to emerge. As a child I assumed that doctors, lawyers, professors were men and the president was always male. These assumptions lasted until I became a mother, a professional, and a graduate student. These experiences made me angry because the work I did seemed not valued while my husband was given accolades for publishing a very boring book. I became a teacher and that work was undervalued and underpaid. I got a divorce. I blamed it on my first husband's demeaning and exploitative behavior. I remember a play based on Studs Terkel's book, Working. In this play, a black woman talked about cleaning homes and taking care of children. I was so moved by her story that I could not stop crying. I married another man but was surprised that once we were living together, again, my contribution was devalued and I was not treated with respect. The work that I did in both marriages far exceeded the husband's contributions and in addition, the lack of respect was infuriating. But I wonder if some of the fury at men comes at least in part from very intimate experiences in which so many women are expected to assume disproportionate amounts of work and are in addition blamed for things that might go wrong. Of course I'm angry at men for the constant state of war, for discrimination against women in general, but underneath it all is very personal experiences of exploitation and disrespect.
4
@LoveNOtWar Excellent comment!
2
@Cathy
Thanks Cathy! Sharing so much and getting so little response is disheartening so your comment boosted my spirits. Thanks again, Cathy.
1
I applaud the idea of multiple women running. It will be good to see a campaign of real issues, and not a single candidate who feels she's due a "coronation," rather than a real campaign. Against the worst possible Republican candidate, the Democrats ran the worst possible Democratic candidate at the same time in 2016, at least in the view of many who may well have voted for Obama previously. Hence many chose who seemed to be the "lesser of the evils," warts and all, and here we are. It should be an interesting campaign.
3
I'm more worried about who will represent the Republican Party and will again vote in that primary.
There will be some differences among the Democrats, but not enough for my taste to miss the opportunity to vote against Trump or Pence.
I'm not voting for somebody just because they may have a second X chromosome. Their policy positions and voting history are the most important criteria to determine if I vote for them. Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard have policy positions that are progressive and forward thinking. I would vote for them hands down. Kamala Harris on the other hand has a very questionable record as California AG and as a SF prosecutor. The recent op-ed piece by Prof. Lara Bazelon detailing her behavior was very revealing and troubling. Also, during the border crisis when asked if she supported ICE, she unequivocally said she did. I know people desperately want a woman president, but what good is it when their policy positions are regressive? We voted for the smooth talker Obama promising a progressive hope and change message and he did nothing for eight years. Don't make the same mistake with Harris when there are other women candidates out there worthy of consideration. But if identity politics are that important to people, how about voting for the first Jewish president, Bernie Sanders.
5
It would be a long awaited expectation that after 45 male presidents there could be woman president of the United States and if the democrats want to confirm their claim that they are a party of women then they should definitely nominate a woman again. Having said that as an independent I will vote for a candidate from either party as long as person elected as president is fair to all American citizens and residents equally and fairly while keeping the economy stable and the world at peace.
4
I was a full supporter of Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton because she was the most qualified person with the most national/international political capital to manage OUR United States of America.
The person I vote for will be the most qualified, most Socially Conscious, most honest and ethical, most willing to work for 99.9% of us to have better lives and social/financial equity.
It may be a woman. It may be a man. It will be the person with the core values I believe in with the courage and experience to put their ideas into action.
7
As a constituent of Senator Harris, I'm on her email list, and her frequent updates are indeed impressive. She would be an excellent President, not necessarily because she's a woman, but because of her ideology and conviction. What's most important is voting the GOP out of the White House. If Senator Harris can do that, I'm all in. If not, I'll give my support to the strongest Democratic candidate, regardless of gender.
6
The problem with the women seeking office on the Democratic side is clearly that they mainly define themselves as being anti-Trump. A centrist woman democrat might actually pull it off if her positions are genuine. Obama positioning himself as a pragmatist and someone who could reach across the aisle. Obviously that did not happen. I am not certain this era of constant confrontation does anyone any good. Too little policy and goal differences among both parties. and plenty of divide and conquer mudslinging. Democrats and Republicans are now obsolete parties and should be replaced by leadership that are not beholden to anyone but the greater good of all Americans
With the majority of Democratic candidates being women it would be a safe bet (at this point) that one will win the nomination. I suspect that male candidates may even hesitate to enter the field. There will be some pressure (by the Party) to have a male VP.
In politics everything is about timing. And Democrats should realize the timing for a woman President is not now. There are still too many white old men and angry people who have been instigated by this President. Raising the ire of these folks would be a fool's endeavor for a woman President. But it is heartening to see so many intelligent, eligible, capable women unafraid to try and break the ultimate glass ceiling. But it is all about timing. 2024 might be just right with perhaps a change of guard.
1
@NNI
Nope.
2
I’m voting for who will be the best Democratic candidate based upon range of valid experience, critical thinking skills, and executive likability. I mean likability not only that I want to have a Scotch with her; but executive likability in that I believe she has the ability to lead effectively the Federal government, and inspire a country that is feeling demoralized.
Senator Harris is my choice. Just donated esp as she, like Sen Warren, will NOT be accepting PAC monies.
3
Left out of the list of why people didn't vote for Hillary Clinton were at least two one often expressed by other writers in the pages of this newspaper. She wasn't a very good candidate, and plenty of women as well as men disliked her before she even ran. Neither of those implies her opponent was in any way worthy.
7
“She wasn’t a very good candidate.” ! Former Secretary of State, Senator, 8 years in the White House, Lawyer, Author, lifelong advocate for education and healthcare...She was one of the most qualified candidates running against one of the least qualified. Please explain.
3
@Grace D.
Hubris, entitlement, pandering to Wall Street after gladly accepting six figures for 30 minutes of work. Too many unanswered questions and oh yeah Hubris.
And I voted for her.
5
@Grace D.
Mike McGuire did not say Hillary was not qualified. He said she was not a very good candidate. He is correct. Her message was, at heart, "eat your brussels sprouts and don't expect much from me." Inspiring it ain't. Her choice of running mate was no better, but she didn't want to be upstaged, did she?
1
Unfortunately, changing workplace roles and men’s perception that they’re being discriminated against is only part of the problem. There is also a significant number of voters - men AND women - who believe the Bible places men above women, and that women should not hold positions of power over men. Evangelicals make up 26% of the population, and they certainly believe this. Catholics make up another 25%, and their leadership structure seems to model this. This presents a massive disadvantage for liberal, female candidates in some states.
I say this as someone who feels proud and lucky to be able to cast my vote for Senator Elizabeth Warren. She'd have my vote in the Presidential election, but democrats shouldn't be worrying about winning Massachusetts.
2
Much as I agree with Michelle, we are way too prone to go overboard about that second X chromosome. I’m thinking of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Anne Coulter... Let’s hear what the candidates have to say and what they’ve done in their careers so far.
4
May the BEST Woman Win?
Sadly I would vote for ANY woman in 2020.
My question is how do we identify the "best" woman and guarantee that she leads the race? Actually that is two questions requiring two separate processes to answer.
Cynic that I am, I fear neither will or can be addressed in the present climate. Self-interest and petty concerns are such ruling factors, not only among candidates, but among (potentially active) voters, how can we hope to arrive at the "best" candidate, much less, winner?
1
I have no doubt that anti-feminism played a role in the last election, but not everyone who voted against Hilary - or who stayed home rather than vote for her - did so because she was a woman. I personally held my nose and voted for her because the alternative - a Trump presidency - was intolerable, but I would've so much preferred had Warren decided to run against her, and I know there are many who shared this same view.
And focusing on gender - as well as any other demographic - is sure to simply further promote the divide that allows Republicans to leverage their statistical minority into winning elections. If Hilary and her supporters had not focused so much on her gender, and the sense of entitlement that it was "time" for a woman president, and instead focused on what she would do for ALL Americans, not just women and her Wall St. donors, she might well have won.
Yes, a lot of people - women as well as men - voted against her simply because she was a women, but theses anti-feminists were certainly not a majority. Had HRC had a more inclusive - and by that I mean ideas on how to create prosperity for all Americans, including non-college educated men and women - she would've won.
The majority of Americans are ready to elect a woman as President, but it has to be someone who represents all of us. So far I think Warren is that woman, but there is a lot of the race to run, and things may change. But I won't cast my vote for someone just because of their gender or race.
3
@Kingfish52 You might get some push back that a Massachusetts liberal represents us all.
Clinton was a terrible choice for the Democrats in the last election, for multiple, obvious reasons, but gender was probably not one of them. The "Entitlement" argument was the main issue that gave many Democrats terminal heartburn.
Harris has a stellar resume, and would be a superb candidate in any election. So forget about the gender issue, already, she's Presidential material, and the Republicans have nothing to match her.
3
@diogenes Junior senators are not suburb candidates.
When this article talks about running a woman against President Trump they mean a Democratic woman. So far those Democrats of the female sex have a practically zero chance of winning the presidency over our president. They are all extremely liberal and the country will never go along with the policies they are promoting. Our country is moderate in their leanings and will never agree to these progressive women. They will get support from the coastal elites but never from middle America and rural parts of the country.
President Trump has nothing to worry about. He is assured reelection because he is continuing to make America great.
2
@WPLMMT
How is he making America great? Giving away tax cuts to the 0.01%? Being besties with Un and Putin? Alienating our Allies? Lying to the American public daily? Obstructing justice? Threatening witnesses? Taking away healthcare? Forcing a government shutdown because the child in chief didn't get his way? The king of deal making? We're waiting for that deal where he makes Mexico pay.
1
@WPLMMT
Economy, stupid. Not to mention the tax cuts, more sensible regulations, SCOTUS appointment and First Step Act. Oh, and border control.
Meanwhile democrats are focused on...gender.
1
I hope a best woman will win, but don't think Kamala Harris is best woman in 2020.
4
Yes. I believe Democrats actually must have a woman candidate!
With a woman, they can rally for PIVOTAL change in democracy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats need to rally for dynamic change for years to come.
After all, the Statue of Liberty is a woman!
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"
I think a woman president would add vigilance.
---------------------------------------------------------
1
How about a Harris / O'Rourke ticket. Win California and Texas and we're 1/3 of the way to the White House!
2
@Deeplyconcerned,
How will O'Rourke deliver Texas, when he couldn't win a Senate seat there?
3
Vote BLUE no matter who! America cannot do worse than the last election.
12
Why doesn’t Rosie O’Donnell run against Trump? I think she could easily defeat/destroy him. And it would be so much fun to watch her rip him to shreds. Run, Rosie, Run!
1
It’s pretty pathetic that the USA is so far behind in its thinking about women than other western counties. We had far too many women that voted for trump in 2016. There are still a lot of women here that think of themselves as lesser human beings than men. Sad.
4
@K-T
Progressives wouldn't vote for a female conservative if their lives depended on it, so spare us.
"The chameleon-like Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, is also running ..."
That's a breath-takingly dishonest and misleading statement. There is no greater chameleon on the Democratic scene of candidates than Kirsten Gillibrand, a fact known to everybody based on her actual switching of positions.
As usual, the idea in Ms. Goldberg's view of the world is not to elect a woman, to support a woman, but to elect and support the “right” woman and to denigrate and bury the “wrong” woman. Hillary and Kamala are God but Betsy DeVos and Kirstjen Nielsen are dirt. Got it.
This is not about supporting women, and the time to elect the first woman president. It is again and again only about hypocrisy and politics.
6
"There are many explanations for Clinton’s loss, including her campaign’s mistakes, Russian hacking and James Comey’s blundering investigation of her email server."
It was Hilary Clinton who had an email server put in her home and not James Comey.
It was Clinton who when subpoenaed by Congress for over 30,000 emails had hired someone to use special Bleachbit software to wipe the disk not James Comey.
In fact, I'm certain that if Clinton had bothered to ask Comey about whether she should use the state.gov email servers or put on in her own home he would have advised her to follow the law. Similarly, he would have advised her to turn the emails over to Congress.
It was Clinton who decided to give 3 talks to Goldman, the icon of Wall Street and the financial crisis for $675,000 *without the media being invited.*.
It was Clinton who called working class people who had jobs sent to China and Mexico from globalization, "deplorables."
Trump never called people who suffered from globalization or feared globalization sending their jobs overseas "deplorables."
Unlike FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ, Clinton *did not understand that the working class have families to feed.*. They have to feed their children, to clothe them, to house them, and save for college for them.
Trump understood the pain of working class job loss from globalization.
I suggest Ms. Goldberg actually go visit mothers in working class families and ask them about jobs for their husbands and themselves.
5
@David MD
It's trump who lies daily without any condemnation from his party.
It's trump whose past business practices put business out of business.
It's trump who deflects and ridicules his nay sayers on a daily basis via twitter.
It's trump who has broken rules/laws of the Constitution on which he was sworn to uphold. Emoluments anyone?
It's trump who had talks with the Russians without benefit of American interpreters.
It's trump the misogynist who runs this country.
We have lost respect of our Allies abroad> we have become chummy with dictators. I could go on but you get my drift.
2
@David MD And they were completely snookered by Trump, who doesn’t care about working people and doesn’t do anything to benefit anyone but himself.
4
@Margo Channing
Trump would never put an email server in Trump tower nor destroy more than 30,000 emails subpoenaed by Congress with special software, nor would he give 3 private talks to Goldman for $675,000 where the media wasn't invited.
Clinton, a Yale lawyer, put the server in her home, and destroyed the emails subpoenaed by Congress and spoke to Goldman without the media being invited because she is a dishonest person.
You keep cite generalities with I cite specifics. It is intellectually dishonest for the journalists to cite misogyny and Comey without citing the email server, destruction of emails, and private speeches to Goldman in addition to calling people suffering from the economic effects of globalization as "deplorables."
@ps
When Carrier wanted to send 2000 Indiana jobs to Mexico Trump (and Sanders) spoke out against it and tweeted against in. Clinton who spoke to Goldman 3 times (in private) was silent when it came to American jobs.
1
I wonder why it's called the "Glass Cliff" explaining how women have to clean up men's messes. Shouldn't it be called the "glass toilet". Like many people have already mentioned below, it's WAY too early to talk about women candidates exclusively....let's just hope the best candidate is nominated by their party. Your elections, after all, still manage to effect the rest of the world.
1
White male under 60! This is no time to draw to an inside straight.
1
Who cares whether it will be a woman or a man as long as she or he is able to beat Trump.
5
Ms. Goldberg is driven by her obsession that Trump's win was due to misogynist attitudes. He won because he won the electoral college by appealing to Americans, male and female. Your lightweight female candidates, who have no qualifications other than their gender will fail.
5
there are a lot of women out there, though, which gtives us all the luxury of voting for the best, not simply voting for the woman. kamala harris has a lot of experience. she was a protegee of willie brown, a brilliant, and corrupt, politician. that puts me off a little. i need to see more of her.
2
Sexism didn't elect Donald Trump. Ignorance and a divisive Democratic candidate who many people just don't like elected Donald Trump. The current crop of female candidates, other than Elizabeth Warren, would do much better than Hilary Clinton did against Trump. Warren's DNA debacle ate up whatever credibility she might have had with moderates.
1
@UncleEddie
Okay, help me here because I don't get it. What was so disqualifying about the DNA test? I think she should have gone on the PBS program where they look up your ancestry instead of doing it the way she did, but why is checking your DNA so terrible? At least she is hasn't bragged about grabbing men by their "maleness", shall we say?
Don't forget, too, the many men out here whose 'male resentment' is directed in the same place as the anger of many women. It seems abundantly clear that male leadership, fueled by testosterone and hubris for centuries, has led us to a dark and stupid place. It's time for a female president, and we already have several good ones to choose from. I don't care if there's a second coming of Bernie wrapped in Beto and Biden -- I'm not supporting any male candidates in the primary.
2
Your last line is the most accurate. Only when men truly mess up will they let women in power to clean up. Hence the hapless Teresa May.
Also I think an African-American woman would be a better vote getter than a white female candidate. Too many white men still have mommy/female teacher complexes which prevent them from warming to a female candidate. An African-American woman lets liberal men escape that syndrome while proving their egalitarian bona fides by casting their vote for a women. Witness the enthusiasm for Michelle Obama.
1
Let's not write off old, white men just yet. This Bay Area socialist already voted for Sen. Harris twice, and would again.
3
What the Fairleigh Dickinson University survey results absolutely prove is a visceral dislike for Hillary Clinton.
Given that Ms Clinton took the incredibly sexist position of being against strong nation-wide single payer medical insurance, and the separately sexist position against a $15 per hour minium wage, while Trump hinted that he preferred single payer to the ACA, one can see support of Trump in a Trump v Clinton election as less sexist than support for Hillary Clinton.
So a much more honest voter survey would have asked the earnings question, and conveyed the earnings information, but mentioned neither Hillary nor Trump.
1
So if Trump is out, and that is a good possibility, then how will a woman fare against Pence --if he is the nominee -- and his anti birth control/ abortion agenda?
1
Hmmm, I seem to remember Berni Bots demonizing an extremely intelligent/experience woman by not voting/voting for 3rd party candidates in protest while claiming she stole the primary even though she won the primary by millions of the popular vote? The result gave Trump the edge to win.
4
I'll take any woman over the president, with the possible exception of Gillibrand, who pointlessly drummed out Al Franken and whose presentations on various talk shows has sounded fragmented and almost incoherent.
But truth be told, I'd vote for a house pet if that's what it took to get rid of the so-called president, although I wouldn't vote for a cat because everyone knows that cats are Republicans. A nice golden retriever, or perhaps a guppy or a limpet would certainly be an improvement. They couldn't do a worse job, and they'd probably know more about economic policy and have read more books that the toad that currently squats in the Oval Office.
465
@gemli....What is it with Democrats protecting sexual harassers? Aren't we supposed to Trust The Women?
Gillibrand and Franken served together in the Senate for 9 years. They rode the elevator together. As one of the younger and more attractive women in the Senate, Gillibrand has probably encountered most of the creeps. Don't you think that she might know a few things about Franken that have never become public?
Franken comes from the entertainment industry, where harassment of women is rampant. It is no surprise when somebody with that background turns out to be a pervert. Why don't you trust Gillibrand and the other Senate women on this? For too long, Democrats protected Harvey Weinstein despite his activities being so well known that Tina Fey joked about him on TV.
Isn't it time for Democrats to live their values?
11
You're making quite a leap there. I have mixed feelings on the Franken resignation and have no vested interest in defending him, but I seriously doubt he would have hit on a senator. the only substantial allegation of was from an incident years before he was in politics.
104
@Ana...Gillibrand and Franken worked together for nine years. You get to know somebody pretty well after that length of time.
Almost every Democratic woman Senator told Franken to go. The Senate is a very small world. I think there was something going on that we will never hear about.
6
In my opinion, Kamala Harris is the best change for Dems to regain the WH again in 2020. I can only hope that voters won't make the same mistake again as they did in 2016.
"w" for women is great but i think right now the "w" we should be most interested in is WIN.
4
A woman-Nancy Pelosi-has already cast Trump's ineffectual, petulant pouting as weakness. That has had to do with her character rather than the skirt she wears.
While a place at the table of power is necessary-each of us-with or without 'hair on our chests' can stand firm in positions of conscience & decency.
3
My ideal matchup: Steve Bullock (D, MT) vs. Larry Hogan (R, MD).
Will this happen? No. Mike Pence will run as an incumbent (yes, incumbent; read: Ford, Gerald) Republican (with VP: Josh Hawley of MO). Democrats will nominate Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker.
You pick the winners. Guaranteed: the VP will be a Stanford alumnus.
As the Democrats flounder around with their "beauty pageant"(including men of course, not to be sexist) of candidates and with their incohesive unified messaging, they should consider the real possibility of Trump not being the candidate. Republicans have formidable configurations of their own dream teams already in the making...Halley, Romney, Kasich as examples. Democrats need to get their acts together soon and narrow down the playing field to begin the game in earnest.
3
The political spectrum is circular, not linear....and every day the so-called ‘Progressive Left’ inches a little bit closer to the totalitarian Right on that spectrum. Pity the moderates and independents having no one to vote for....
4
@Shenoa
I pity the independents and moderates who are unable to tell the difference between the progressive left (FDR Democrats) and the reactionary right (Hilter Republicans).
It is simple: Do you want a democracy or an oligarchy?
1
I would agree with Ms Goldberg's premise if she had included a word of warning--
Democrats must resist the emotional impulse to nominate another "iconic first" for POTUS.
Seeing Barack Obama become the first black president was wonderful and exhilarating! And results of the '18 mid-terms...with many women and minority candidates winning...were equally so!
My concern is that D's, again, have become intoxicated with identifying the next iconic first...first woman, first Hispanic, first Hispanic woman...and those emotionally-driven impulses could result in another harsh lesson in 2020 if not tempered by the cold reality of 2016, ie, winning elections is all that matters.
Winning assures control of the important Three P's of Politics...power, procedure, policy-making. We have witnessed that cold reality for two+ years.
Democrats have got to identify candidates at every level...local, state, federal...who can WIN. 'Best chance to win' must be the defining criterion of every candidate, every job, at every level.
Of course, experience, intelligence and policy goals...even charisma...are important considerations. But first and foremost, a candidate must pass the pacing question, applied honestly and objectively-- CAN THIS CANDIDATE WIN?
If a woman WHO CAN WIN is identified, let's nominate her!
But let's never forget the harsh lesson of 2016 -- winning is all that matters. Resist the emotional impulse to search for the next 'iconic first' and get serious about WINNING in 2020.
4
I recall a similar train of thought coming after Obama's election: George W Bush messed the country up so badly that we actually elected a black man to clean it up. Now we have Trump - and a woman being considered to clean the mess up. Perhaps the underlying message here isn't that Trump made such a mess we have to have a female president to clean it up (and btw, really?) but maybe, just maybe - don't elect Republicans, they'll just make a giant mess of the country and leave it to their Democratic successor to clean up. Rinse, repeat.
Some further thoughta about the Cassino report:
1) Some in the HRC 2016 camp made the assertion that being Black actually helped Obama. Doing the Cassino emasculation analysis with repect to race might yield similar if not worse results than with respect to gender. Again, Obama won and HRC lost in large part because Obama did not make his identitiy the ceter of his campaign. And he distanced himself from all of those trying to make his campaign about race.
2) Ths social analysis in the Cassino report is wrong-headed. The decline in male incomes relative to female has less to do with any sociatal changes than the loss o high-paying manuacturing jobs generally in the US.
1
While I have and would support a woman for President, let's not forget it is more imoirtant to win in 2020 than to prove a point in defeat.
4
Michelle Goldberg is right that sexism played a role in the defeat of Hillary Clinton. But it was quite possibly the sexism of feminists.
There are some who may believe that Bill Cosby did not get a fair trial. Due process was presumably guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
But feminists tried Cosby in the press BEFORE his actual trial in the court system. Cosby was accused by 60 women who had been organized by Gloria Allred and her daughter who brought up accusations for which the statutes of limitations had expired.
None of these were proven. None of these women were cross-examined regarding the veracity of their accusations close to the time of the event. Feminist argued that they should nevertheless be believed because "60 women cannot lie." Or be mistaken.
But sexual harassment is a relatively vague charge. In many cases the charge seems exaggerated. And Monica Lewinsky at first said her affair with Bill Clinton was consensual, now she says it could not possibly have been consensual.
The district attorney trying the case ran on the platform of getting a conviction. The first trial with one of the earlier accusers ended in a hung jury. The second with five accusers testifying got a conviction.
The same Gloria Allred who tried Cosby in the media was present at Hillary's victory celebration which wasn't a victory.
Men had a perfectly legitimate right to vote against Clinton. There was a belief among some that she would not protect the rights of the accused.
1
Let’s be honest. Yes Hillary was the first potential female US president but she lost.
There is a bus load of Democrat presidential candidates for the 2020 election.
Unless the final Democrat slelected,(male or female), appeals to blue collar working men, Trump will win again.
It’s not rocket science. Remember in USA you don’t vote for the candidates you most like but the ONE you dislike least.
2
Sexism indeed played a role in Hillary's loss; but how big a role? No one really knows. She ran a horrible campaign, ignored the realities of the Electoral College and gave the impression of her inevitability. The fact that a slim majority of white women abandoned her for Trump cannot be overlooked. Pick a candidate (male or female) from a state that does not border the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, and we just may have a winner.
1
I voted for Clinton because she was the most qualified to be President, not because she was a woman. A vote for someone based on gender is still sexist, whether that candidate is male or female. (Same goes for a vote based on race.)
Unfortunately, a woman is still held to a higher standard of competence. It’s not enough for her to be as good as her male peers, she has to be the absolute best in the room. And sometimes even this isn't enough, as she is made to jump through all kinds of hoops regarding her appearance and likeability.
I want the first woman president to be at the absolute top of the class, just as Obama was. Yes, I will hold her to a very high standard before she gets my vote. If a man is a crummy president, well he’s a bad president and throw the bum out. But a bad or even mediocre woman president would, fairly or unfairly, reflect on all of us women who are striving to be taken on our own merits. This would set us back for generations.
5
No talk about all the WOMEN who voted for Trump? !!!
Statistics showed a "Catty Backlash" vote, especially amongst upper middle -class SUBURBAN WOMEN in places like Suburban Pennsylvania.
Also the Pro-LIfe women's vote helped him greatly in places like Florida.
Contrary to NYT worldview, there are still MANY women out there who love the Patriarchy. They love a TALL, POWERFUL, MAN WITH A BIG FAT WALLET to keep them and their precious off-spring well appointed. That's the way it should be they feel. They also have no problem with one in the Oval office.
4
Two points:
1) Sexism also got Obama elected.
2) My instinct that the first woman president will be a Republican.
4
dear fellow Democrats
please nominate a white male with at least one-term political experience to defeat Trump
- Not a white male, who wholly supports Ms. Harris to stay as Senator for at least one term.
1
When Jeb Bush was roundly rejected as a republican candidate, the message, to me, was clear: America has had it, at least for a while, with political dynasties. After the George Dubya debacle, even republicans are no longer willing to back a presidential candidate solely on the strength of their relation to a former president. In fact, these days, being related to a former president is a liability. The failure of the experts at the DNC and the Clinton campaign to receive this message and run a viable candidate was maddening, as is any analysis that fails to include it as a decisive factor.
We all know that campaign promises are a pack of lies, but we let it slide because presidential campaigns are showbiz, plain and simple. Hillary Clinton is terrible at showbiz, but Trump is an old pro, and he wiped the floor with her. Male, female or otherwise, if the dems run another stiff with no zazz, Trump is a two termer.
Obama didn't win because he was black or a man, he won because he was better at showbiz than the barrel of cold fish running against him. He won because he had zazz. George Dubya did not win on the strength of his policies or track record, he won because he was running against a treated two by four. Clinton? Showbiz won that one, too (MTV, playing sax on the Tonight Show).
The dems need to look to Hollywood for a candidate, or they are doomed. Doomed!
1
@Scruf
You didn't convince me, but you did make me laugh. That's rare around these parts, so have a recommend anyway.
I'm much more concerned with whether the Democratic nominee has the best chance of winning than I am with whether the Democratic nominee is a woman.
That should be the overriding goal. Winning. Defeat Trump, or, if he is not the nominee, defeat whatever Republican is the nominee.
And, even if the Dems cannot win the Oval, they have to go all out to gain control the Senate and maintain control of the House. That's key for all budget/appropriations matters and approval of cabinet and federal court and Supreme Court nominations, advise and consent etc.
The whole "winning" thing was actually Charlie Sheen's thing before it was Trump's.
But, now......it needs to be a Democratic Party thing.
Do what it takes to win. Within the law.
1
I like the headline. "His Repulsiveness, Donald Trump" is a great fit.
The chances are strong that we will have another female Democratic presidential candidate. For pragmatic reasons, and also because as California Attorney General she was a strong consumer advocate, I'm supporting Harris. I think she has an effective but quiet strength, and that could balance the need for a progressive candidate who has never felt the need to lay down a culture war gauntlet. Perhaps that does not suit some, in particular those who felt that Obama was a "conservative" Democrat! But let's be real, here: withholding support for the good in favor of the perfect lands us not in paradise, but the repulsive purgatory we are now enduring.
Trump already lost to a woman but in our country votes don't decide elections.
6
The pros and cons of a female nomination highlighted here are all valid in 2020. However, you really shouldn't use Hillary Clinton as a data point to prove sexism. As stated: One of the positives of the 2020 primary is having multiple female candidates. The lone female choice in 2016 was, how shall say this politely, problematic.
Voters rejecting Clinton does not prove sexism one way or the other. "Gotcha" questions about employment earnings not withstanding. Clinton is unpopular with a majority of the electorate. That she is more or less unpopular than Trump doesn't say anything about political gender preferences. We're talking about Trump.
The researchers are using statistics to evaluate a single data point. No offense but that's not good science. Suggesting sexism as a significant factor in the 2016 election is a solid theory. However, you're not proving anything using Trump and Clinton as your deciding point.
@Andy
Actually, Cassino study showed an interactive effect of question and candidate choice condition on preference for Trump. And folks were randomly assigned to condition and everything else was held constant. Moreover, this research was consistent with a large body of research on the dominance penalty and backlash effects (Laurie Rudman and colleagues).
So, no offense to you, but very good science.
1
A centrist liberal, I applaud when Ms. Goldberg opined that having several women compete against one another [and men?] could help "normalize female political ambition". But the overall tenor of her article tends to reduce "women" to a single category.
To paraphrase an old saying: the difference between adults and children is that children want to *be* something, whereas adults want to *do* something. Ms. Goldberg verges on judging a candidate on the basis of gender, rather than abilities, temperament, accomplishments, and the like.
The civil rights movement should have taught liberals to pay attention to the content of one's character – not one's race, national origin, or (mark this!) gender. Only then will the role of women in government and politics be "normalized". Can progressives heed this lesson?
5
As a woman, I will get into trouble for saying this.. what we need is a male candidate who is the polar opposite of the current president. As many readers have expressed, the
backlash is way too strong for a woman candidate to get a fair treatment in the primaries to advance to candidacy. The next election is all about who will tame the highly charged, deep seated emotions to a higher ground!
4
Goldberg mentions that men feel under siege in America, but then proceeds to gloss over why. If Democrats want to win in 2020, it can’t just be the party of “Me Too” and unhelpful razor ads about “toxic masculinity.” In other words, it must try to appeal to BOTH genders. That doesn’t mean giving up on the issue of sexism and equality for women. It does mean, however, that it must address the very real structural economic issues that have disproportionately affected men who have fared worse in the modern economy, especially in the industrial Midwest. Why are men falling behind? What psychological impact is it having? What public policies can be used to address it? I strongly believe a female candidate can and should be President. But they must not fall into the current progressive groupthink that only women’s issues matter. Many men are suffering. Letting them know they matter and that they’re heard might go a long way towards reducing their anger.
2
How about the best Democratic candidate win, without regard to gender, race, etc. Identity-based, "it's (fill in the blank) turn" politics is not the way to choose a qualified candidate. Objectives, government and political experience (particulary in leadership roles), intelligence, temperament, respect for the Constitution, ability to inspire, ability to work across party lines without abandoning principles-- please show us these.
I am very grateful that Ms. Pelosi is Speaker now. If I lived in her district or was a member of the House Den caucus, then I would have voted for her. But that would have nothing to do with her gender.
5
The final paragraph is written in the wrong tense.
Ms. Goldberg's last sentence should read "has wrecked," not "to wreck."
This from a man whose wife made and still makes considerably more than he ever did. Never a single day have I felt "emasculated" by the circumstances. Quite the contrary, I am proud of and for my wife. It allowed me to retire at 66, and I have been told more times than I can recall by other men they wish they could be in the same position.
I will gladly vote for Kamala Harris, or for Elizabeth Warren, or Kirsten Gillibrand over Trump. Ms. Gabbard, with her willingness to "compromise" (I hear "accommodate") Trump gives me pause, however.
2
The concern is real - yes, sexism could shave a few points, disastrous if the margin turns out to be razor-thin. But this effect burns off once the corner has been turned; electing the second female President will be a lot easier than electing the first. We can already see that on the nominating side: Hillary lost the Electoral College, but she won the nomination, and look at the primary field now. And we can see it in Europe, where notwithstanding ups and downs Thatcher, Merkel, and May have all been returned to power at least once by increased margins after exercising it successfully.
The primary electorate will watch the situation as it unfolds. In the currently known field, I'd say both of the best two choices are among the women. If, God forbid, Trump seems to be broadening his appeal in early 2020 (or if President Pence is an unexpected popularity magnet), Democrats may choose caution and wait for a non-incumbent cycle to do the inevitable. If the Republicans are looking at all beatable, then the time is now.
"Trump could be the man to wreck the country so badly that Americans will be willing to let a woman save it."
Don't bet what remains of our democracy on that fantasy.
Why disparage Gabbard, Ms Goldberg? Gabbard has political courage, and she was willing to toss aside being the Darling of the DNC by crossing over to Sanders. That cost her, but it earned her respect from many liberals like myself.
Gabbard went to Syria and spoke with Assad. That took guts, and she was ultimately correct in questioning whether he actually used chemical weapons. UN studies cast serious doubt, pointing to the fact that IS routinely uses them, possessed them, and was in full retreat when they were deployed
That is exactly the kind of leadership we need: a woman (or man) who speaks truth to power, and I mean REAL power, not just going against a government shutdown or decrying prescription drug costs. There is nothing more powerful in DC than the defense industry running our Think Tanks and allying with foreign governments. Gabbard went up against them and was the ONLY candidate on our side willing to take that dive.
That’s why Gabbard can’t win. She made powerful enemies. And it’s exacly why she needs our support, if not for the presidency (I prefer Sherrod Brown) then at least for a seat in the Senate one day.
3
Harris has some good ideas, but she ignores climate change, which is the greatest risk that our nation faces.
That oversight alone shows she lacks the judgement to be president.
3
I disagree with Michelle Goldberg on this.
Trump quite possibly would have lost the electoral college to Hillary had Hillary run as the better choice for president, rather than campaign as a feminist.
Most surprisingly as it turns out apparently most white women actually voted against Hillary, for Trump, quite possibly in spite of Hillary being a white woman because of Hillary's campaign of gender identification.
Quite possibly she lost the electoral college on that basis with the loss of white women voters.
Gender and racial identification is a very "hard sell" for many voters and particularly many liberals.
Obama won enough white votes on the basis of being the better choice, and not on the basis of racial identification.
3
@David she won the women's vote, though. since she also represents the party that supports a multicultural country she could have lost the white women's vote on the basis of race, not gender.
@slightlycrazy
Millions of "white" people voted for Obama, of African descent, (as we all are btw), not once, but actually twice, who did not vote for Hillary, so where is the persuasive evidence that Hillary's defeat was racial?
Nikki Haley was elected governor of, of all places, the deep South, South Carolina.
There are now a huge number of politically attractive women who are or may run for President in 2020, including the hugely successful Senator Harris, who of course is also of African descent.
Hardly evidence of sexism or racism.
The media has some responsibility for the mess we have with Trump. He was given way too much free advertising, and the NYT did their investigative work on him far too late.
Looking to 2020, please give fair coverage to all serious candidates so we can see all they have to offer, not just the hyped imagery Trump enjoyed because media outlets fell for the shiny object.
And please, can we just focus on intelligence and experience rather than gender? Let’s credit most people with the realization that women and men can be equally effective leaders. There have already been many leaders all over the world of both genders.
5
Thank you for the sobering and thought provoking analysis. The thought of anyone defeating Mr. Trump in 2020 is encouraging (if, in fact, he runs). It would be doubly good if it were one of the women U.S. Senators who are running. We support Senator Harris. She combines the strength, intelligence, and charisma needed to pull off the candidacy. Our country would benefit greatly by a Harris Presidency. Not the least of the reasons for this would be the restoration of dignity to the White House.
1
Here's the winning platform:
1. Low cost affordable health care
2. Revamped K-16 Education
3. Major renovations in energy and infrastructure
4. Major reorganization of our federal taxation and spending. #POP, #Core4
1
If the mission is to defeat Trump in 2020, the sad but true fact is that a 'generic' male Democratic nominee will have a better chance than a generic female. Those couple points mentioned in the article are very real and could prove decisive, especially given the structure of the Electoral College.
2
Man or woman, the sole agenda in 2020 is vanquish Trump. And the Democratic Candidate should be one who can achieve that. This is no time to experiment. Americans cannot afford another four years of Trump. I am not against women but the Democrats should face reality. Maybe in 2024 we will have a woman President who will be an unequivocal winner.
2
When I watched Kamela Harris rip Jeff Sessions a new one in his senate intelligence hearing I told myself that if she ever ran for president that I would vote for her. I believe that she may be partially responsible for Session's recusal in the Mueller investigation.
3
It is possible to elect the first woman president in 2020, but the circumstances must be similar to the ones that helped elect the first black president.
Like Obama, she must be a relatively new face on the national stage, so that the voter may project whatever they like onto the candidate. Also like Obama was, she must be free of decades worth of the type of conspiracy theories that cost Clinton so dearly. Ideally, there should also be an enormously unpopular incumbent to help make change voters suppress their deeply ingrained biases. Fortunately, all of the major female contenders so far seem reasonably close to meeting those requirements.
2
Kamala Harris is unlikely to be the Democratic presidential candidate for 2020.She just does not have the competitive edge of several candidates in the crowded Democratic field .
1
Can we set aside the untruths and misrepresentations that are not in accord with reality? "Clinton just wasn't the right woman." "Clinton lost only because she was a lousy candidate." "Clinton was nominated because she was a woman." "Clinton lost because she was a slave to identity politics." Etc. Many factors contributed to her loss including her own mistakes.
Those factors included misogyny; the Comey announcements; Russian interference via Facebook, Twitter, YouTube; the stolen emails; timed releases of the stolen emails by Wikileaks; Trump campaign finance law felonies; the likely conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia; a brutal primary that damaged her candidacy and assisted the Trump campaign; progressive purists who sat out the election; etc.
Yep, misogyny really does exist. For example, women are still paid less than men for the same work. For example, the pertinent studies, described in in the NY Times, found that the Sanders voters who switched to Trump (10% of all Sanders voters) did so almost entirely because of racial and gender resentment. Little else mattered for those voters. That number of voters alone could very well have changed the election outcome.
5
@Robert,
I don't always agree with Ms. Goldberg, but the data she highlights in this column are compelling.
I wonder if the same results would come out now, post #metoo and with female candidates whose accomplishments are not in any way tied to their spouses.
1
@Robert You forgot one glaring entry...She lost due to her very own Hubris.
2
@Margo Channing
Thank you for your reply. I'm afraid I don't altogether understand the point you are making. Clinton had already been a successful senator and secretary of state. She was possibly the best qualified presidential candidate we have ever had. She had a great deal to be proud of. The word "hubris" is usually defined as "excessive pride." How does that apply? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't mean, "having the hubris to think that a woman can be elected president and carry out the duties of the office of president." I should have included the notion of "entitled" in my list of misrepresentations that should be set aside. She grew up in a lower middle class family that was neither wealthy nor powerful.
1
My instincts are that if 57% of people say they plan to vote against the Republican, you want to go ahead and let them do that without giving them reasons, legitimate or otherwise, to reconsider. But then again, my instincts told me Clinton would win in 2016, so …
One big reason Obama was able to win in 2008 was that his candidacy spurred a huge turnout of African American voters who almost unanimously supported him. One big reason Clinton lost was that she did not inspire a similar turnout among women and they did not support her in similar numbers. Obama was able to inspire voters with a feeling that to vote for him was to participate in an important historic milestone. Clinton, not so much.
My sense of it is that if Democrats nominate a woman, she needs to be the kind of candidate who inspires women to register and vote in historic numbers. Without that wave of support, I could easily see 2020 being a re-run of 2016: the Democrat wins by enormous margins in California and New York and wins the popular vote, but suffers puzzling upsets in the Rust Belt that allow Trump to win the Electoral College, again.
4
@JDM
We're not a belt, oxidized or not.
Gender is immaterial. The main question is who has the greatest probability of defeating Trump? That person is the one whose career resume dwarfs Trump, the one who can crush Trump on a debate stage, the one who has the respect of both parties for getting legislation done in a bipartisan manner and would never create the type of chaos that has led to this shutdown, the one who would make an excellent Commander-In-Chief. That person is Joe Biden.
4
@nzierler, The person with the greatest probability of defeating Trump is Trump, who will likely be wheeled or frog marched away, or maybe he will abscond. As far as I can see, he will not be running in 2020 because he is politically, emotionally and morally unfit, and even his gang in the Senate will see fit to get rid of him in an effort to save their own hides.
@nzierler The candidate you've just described was Hillary Clinton.
1
News media around the world remind us daily that the oceans are warming, that species of animals and plant life are losing their habitats and becoming extinct. Scientists are saying that human activity is responsible. We are responsible, and we are women, men, trans, fluid, or gender neutral. And whatever race or religion we happen to be, we share the same fate, We are all scrambling for crumbs. When humans begin to consider the health and well being of our planet, people might realize that making peace will be a major step in rehabilitating our precious little life support system, and perhaps create a new understanding of ourselves. It’s getting late, folks. A vision is needed, and it can no longer be about a person or personality.
1
And how far did Cynthia Nixon go with her campaign of "Elect me because I'm a woman?" Admittedly, the women mentioned in this article have more government experience than Cynthia Nixon or Donald Trump, but Kamala Harris' two yars as a senator does not rise to presidential qualifications in my opinion. Nor does her Jamaican/Indian ethnic background qualify her. Barring the reincarnation of Barbara Jordan, Hillary Clinton is the only woman with that experience right now. Unfortunately, her day is past. Of course, experience isn't everything. Kennedy had very little experience, appointed his brother to a cabinet post, gave pretty speeches, accomplished little, and is revered; whereas Johnson and Nixon had immense experience, accomplished quite a lot in office and are despised for good reason. Still, I would rather have experience in office than the current incompetent.
6
Good luck to the women ! The next president will have the Herculean task of restoring trust in government .It will have to be someone with empathy, ideas, impeccable judgment, no personal conflicts and an ability to relate to the vast majority of the American people.I predict that by 2020 there will be a recession so whoever hopes to be elected must also have answers to income inequality and bank regulation.What we cannot Do is fixate on gender-Great Britain had Margaret Thatcher,Germans, Angela Merkel etc, all elected without undo focus on their gender.
2
@Janet Michael Is the Herculean task you refer to cleaning out the Augean stables?
1
There's no reason to run a woman because she's a woman.
There's no reason not to run a woman because she's a woman.
I'll be voting for Warren in the primaries not because she's a woman, but because she's put her money where her mouth is. She hasn't just made promises to help ordinary Americans, she's actually followed through, in spades. That's exactly what we need in the White House right now.
12
@Bill
Quite right. Add to that: she is a Harvard professor who doesn't seem like one; she comes from Oklahoma, not the dreaded "elitist" coasts; and most importantly she understands and is not afraid to tackle the biggest obstacle to American democracy, the party of Wall Street.
3
@Bill In Colorado we elected the first openly gay governor, not on the basis of being gay, but because he presented a better plan for the future of our state. The fact that he is gay was well known for years and never came up in the campaign. Historical prejudice against women does not hold a candle to historical prejudice against homosexuality. When another woman runs with experience similar to Hillary's I will be voting for her, just as I did for Hillary. Not because she is female, but because she will be the better candidate.
2
@Condelucanor
That is both true and false. While the punishment for being gay has historically been far harsher than for being a woman, people who are gay have usually been able, when necessary, to hide that they were gay. A woman cannot hide being a woman. That is branded at birth, and all the oppression that follows.
1
As much as I long for the day to see a woman as POTUS sadly there are too many people men and women who will see to it that this will never happen. Too many misogynistic men and women who don't want a woman as the Leader of the Free World at the helm.
I'm a lifelong democrat, I voted for Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2008 and 2012... but I left the party and went for Trump in 2016. I work in an industry that is often led by competent, highly intelligent, capable women and would have no problem voting for a woman for President. Hillary lost because she was an arrogant candidate who cast off half the country as racists for having viable concerns about border integrity, etc. To this day, the Democrats have never had even the slightest self reflection about why so many people like me left the party, many in key voting districts. They're going to be scratching their heads in 2020 when Trump wins his second term, while lined up like lemmings behind a disingenuous opportunist like Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren.
12
@Blue switched Red Perfectly said! In reading the blog, it's abundantly clear that Dems want an ethnic, female, progressive, secularist to represent their highly valued virtues of racial (black) diversity, feminine empowerment over (not equal to) men, government imposition of equality of outcomes, and a clear denouncement of Christian ethics and tradition. Dems rightly point out the popularity of their positions with the Clinton popular vote, but seem to wish everyone to be forced into their belief through government rather than any compromise whatsoever. The US government must represent coastal elites and mid-westerners, conservatives and liberals, originalists and living constitutionalists, Asians/whites/Christians as well as blacks/Muslims/women. Dems are poised to run the most progressive socialist candidates in hopes of changing the country. They will not. The answer lies quite obviously in the middle, but they have no interest here whatsoever insuring a Trump 2nd.
5
@Blue switched Red - you think Trump is NOT a 'disingenuous opportunist' ?? He defines the word. He is the least fit president ever.
RE: 'viable concerns about border integrity, etc.' The border has many fewer crossings than in the past. You have fallen for falsity.
If anything - you define the sort of voter that Michelle Goldberg illustrates.
2
@Blue switched Red . You can have your tweet-obsessed liar, but the rest of us will work hard to elect a pro-education, pro-healthcare, pro-environment, pro-ally person of fine character and thoughtful intelligence. We reflected plenty and won the House of Representatives, so you already got that part wrong.
3
The face of the Democratic party now looks female and the intersting ones are probably minorities black, Indian-black, Latina. And they’ve all got their pet issues: immigration, race-relations, mothers and children...prison reform (for minorities). Of course, the mainstresmers who the Republicans are praying will run - Bernie, Liz Warren, Biden - because they can’t win.
And the Dems calculations are based on the premise that Trump will be their opponent. Try Romney who will be hard to beat.
4
@Midnight Scribe
To us independents, Romney as President means Trump is not President, and that’s a win.
@Puny Earthling
A win? Lock in corporate control of our government for the next forever. You’ll never get the Repubs out. I’m in Paris with Macron, his corporate culture which everybody loves so much. People here - ordinary people, working people, nurses, teachers, optometrists - can’t feed their children. For them it’s simple economics: income disparity has become so severe that they’re starving. And they’re getting ready to storm the Bastile - all over the country. When are the fat, complacent, faith-based Americans who are slowly going down the plug hole going to say something? (And I don’t mean: “Make America Great Again!”) At least the French have some guts and it’s not political differences that motivate them; it’s the argent, stupid! Plain and simple economics and social justice. Money. And they’re winning - a piece of the pie every day.
Correction: may the best person win. If you eliminate half the population from the process, you don't necessarily get that.
8
I'm just looking forward to working with my local Indivisible group to help elect a reasonable, honest, thoughtful, educated, careful, tweet-less, ally-friendly, environment-friendly, education-friendly, and healthcare-friendly person with the character and values that reflect those like Michelle Obama. We need a Michelle Obama-type, whether man or woman, to represent all of us.
3
The poll cited is with a sample size much too small and limited in scope for the findings to be statistically significant. This is another clear example of innumeracy in the NYT.
How can you base an entire column on it?
5
So can we please vote in a true egalitarian progressive like Elizabeth Warren rather than a divisive Machiavellian misanthrope like Kristen Gillibrand? Women are not free of flaws just by virtue of being female. And the majority of white women voted for Trump... of their own free will I presume. Identity politics is the problem, not the solution.
7
The Cassino analysis provides only hafl the data to determine if sexism was a major factor and the analysis is much more than the impact on men. Women are the majority of the electorate, and if being a woman helped HRC with women then the male impact and the female impact offset. Performing the imasculation analysis only on men leaves out more than half the data. And the analysis is much more complex.
If Obama had run as the "Black candidate" in the same vein as HRC ran as the "woman candidate" (I'm with Her) probably he would have lost as well. Placing gender/identitiy politcs front and center in the HRC campaign was probably just another in the strategic, tactical, and execution blunders of the HRC campaign. The democrat should have won easily in 2016, man, woman or Yellow dog from Texas,despite any impact from Russian trolling. Any of the women playing up gender for 2020 risk casting themselves as HRC2020. The history and positions of the candidates matter. The actual campaign exectuion matters. A woman president would be a nice to have for many, but making it the centerpiece of the election will probably get the same results as in 2016.
7
Face it, guys. Women voters outnumber men. People of color now outnumber European whites. Gals like Senator Harris have all the bases covered. she will trounce don con- as would have any other
candidate but Hillary, last time. GOPers left her in place, because she was easy to beat. 30,000 erased emails was Obstruction of Justice- and they used it effectively to beat her.
Better get used to a new order.
2
Democrats won't win until they realize that sexism made them lose; in particular the sexism of Hillary and Bill; the noxious character assassination the WH did on Monica Lewinsky prior to the dress coming out (I clearly remember all the slanderous leaks from the WH that the was an unstable stalker, which the media dutifully reported) and Hillary's and Bill's subsequent entitled attitude towards her disqualified Hillary in the minds of many feminists - this is a hard reality that Democrats need to accept. Oh - and the rampant sexism in Bernie's campaign didn't help either.
2
@Princess Leia The president's blatant sexual harrassment, affairs, woman-bashing is ok, though.
2
Nope. No. If the opponent were Kasich or Romney, I would agree. The worst case would be somewhat neutral, not hugely counterproductive.
But... 4 More years of Trump would be so harmful to our country that we cannot risk losing. This is a time for pragmatism, not for proving a point. If Trump is re-elected because rural America can't stand a nakedly ambitious woman of color and more misogynists are confirmed on our courts, our environment damaged, healthcare taken away, abortions banned, ... how does that benefit women?
We need to elect a nominee who's electable in today's ugly America, not in the America we want it to be. That sadly means racism and sexism need to be factored in.
4
@Liz Can the Dem primary work? It didn't last time. And the Rep primaries delivered Trump. True leadership would demand a fair process whereby the people selected the candidate. Trump, the media, and old-guard Dems will do everything to confound the process guaranteeing a skewed result.
Pushing the agenda from the start that it must be a woman that becomes the next presidential candidate above and beyond all her qualities as a viable leader for the country is what got idiot Trump elected in the first place. That is not how leaders are either made or admired. A leader arises naturally from the clot of candidates and makes herself or himself admired. People want to follow a leader; but don't tell anyone, at least implicitly, that it must be a woman. Let the best leader win the role. If it is a woman, that is fine, but don't force feed the country an ideology. That is where the rumbles of rebellion against the Democrats will once again begin. Frankly, the Democrats are becoming so Left wing--just as the Republicans are becoming so Right wing--that I don't see great hope for either party.
4
they key to ending republican control of the white house and control of the senate is turnout -- there are more of us
angry white men are a powerful voting bloc because they vote
a woman can win if the people who are ready change show up
1
Remember that white women helped Trump over the hump. It is about race and ethnicity more than gender, in my view. Had all women voters been Black, Hillary would be president. Black males also favored Hillary. Why is this so? Go deeper Ms. Goldberg.
2
Careful what you wish for. The glass cliff often refers to the captain ceding the helm after ramming the iceberg. I'll defer to Patton Oswalt, "America's more sexist than racist, and we're really really racist." Pretty sure his language was more colorful...
While neither Michelle, nor the “Times”, may agree, here’s my take on an effective strategy & strategic narrative that Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, or any other principled progressive woman candidate could well use to resolve the three-way conflict that the 2016 campaigns of Trump, Clinton, and Sanders presented for an essential revolutionary change that must occur in 2020:
Emperor Trump of course represented male dominated Empire for the ‘rougher-talking’ neocon ‘R’ Vichy Party, Hillary represented a novel female approach for entrenched deceit of the ‘smoother-lying’ neoliberal con ‘D’ Vichy Party, while Sanders represented revolutionary-lite change with his sincere, but vague two-word sound-bite of “Political Revolution” (Against what, Bernie?).
So this triad (try aide) in ‘16 is potentially (re)solvable if, and only if, any seriously left progressive social(ist) democracy-thinking woman candidate strongly eschews both faux-Emperor Trump’s scam role for the real Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which rules ‘we the American an people’ now, exposes Hillary’s dollar-drenched, if powerful role as faux ‘Empress in waiting’, and strengthens Bernie’s populist progressive promises by actually running an overt, principled, and serious campaign of ‘exposing’, confronting, continuin, and completing our original American “Revolution Against Empire” [Justin du Rivage] by leading the people in a peaceful people’s “Political/economic and social Revolution Against Empire”
I agree!
Enough with old white men.
Kamala Harris gets my vote.
Guys, I know the patriarchy has made life easier for you but it also puts you in a box. Break out! Find your true voices!
2
Misogyny hasn't disappeared since 2016.
Getting involved in bathrooms for trans people scared some people off their couch and into the polls.
Ilhan Abdullahi Omar is radioactive in most of the nation.
I want a Trumpinator to end this.
A TransMuslimillegal leading platform will not win the electoral vote.
You have some hate out there. Some of it is polite, some of it is ugly.
1
if 2018 provides even imperfect guidance, if a female gives up to percentage points when running against Trump, she would still win by six or so points
The current polarization is this country will be resolved when we see that the far left and Trump are in deep conflict not just because they are different, but in conflict because the are very much the same in fundamentals; look closely at their shared belief that there is no truth. Reality to both groups are what they say it is; therefore they both seek to control the narrative of public shared life. They both throw red meat to the base, as if this is the proper method to inspire and motivate people to work for change. In this both are very much a part of Western civilization's choice to speak to others through rhetoric; the truth they think too hard for the simple folk to understand. Well. The internet, among other things, are changing this rapidly. The average person today has more access to knowledge, then perhaps the most informed citizens at the birth of this nation. To quote a true lefty, Noam Chomsky, the role of the intellectual is "to tell the truth about what is valuable and important, to those who should hear." So for example, is senator Warren doing this when she articulates her beliefs about how economics work, without balancing this fact with personal responsibility? Is the Republican passivity around Trump any different? I think not. The time has come again for real leaders who work for all the people, and not just the hot flashes of Trump, or the anger of the left.
2
"(The chameleon-like Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, is also running;...
The real chameleon is the former A-rated NRA member and to the right of Trump on the immigration issue, Kirsten Gillibrand.
6
Identity politics is used as a slur against Democrats, but Trump's power is all based on identity politics: his band of terrified and angry white men will follow him anywhere.
4
@KJR You forget the hordes of adoring women who voted for him as well.
1
Sexism helped Trump? Please stop making excuses for Hillary Clinton's campaign failure and her personal flaws.
9
@James Good point, James. 3 million more votes is a campaign failure, and Donald Trump has no personal flaws. What does that tell you about American voters. That a woman with personal flaws (name them, please) can't be president but a man who mocks disabled people, admits to serial sexual assault, is married three times and has cheated on all of them, calls women dogs, etc., attacked a Gold Star couple and a Vietnam veteran, was ordered to pay $25 million for defrauding Americans, is devoid of empathy for other human beings....wow. That is what passes as a person with few or no personal flaws, James? THAT is frightening.
5
@James. James makes a very astute point here. Hillary Clinton was not only the first woman to run for president (viably), she is the first candidate to have personal flaws. If only she'd been as flawless as, oh, say, Donald Trump. Or I it that, if it's a MAN mocking disabled people and insulting anyone who dares challenge or criticize him, or is a raging philanderer...ugh, the list is too long, it's different than a woman whose personal flaws include a laugh many don't like and staying with her husband...(I don't know specifically what flaws you're referring to, James, but you only proved with your comment that sexism is very, very alive and well). For every one lie Hillary told, Trump gets 6,000; for every one 'Personal flaw" (such as, adhering to your marriage vows), Trump gets, well, as many as he wants.
You couldn’t make up a worse President than Trump. So why are people so concerned about his re-election?
The engine driving the Trump movement is the new economy that favors capital over labor and that requires higher education for entry to the middle class in the absence of capital. It’s the gig economy stupid. No benefits. No pension. No upward path.
Trump is how a large swath of the economically disenfranchised hit back. Sadly, this behavior is a lot like disenfranchised blacks burning down their own communities in the late 60’s.
As a nation, we are fabulously wealthy. Yet a huge chunk of the population has no clear route to their slice of the American dream.
You wanna beat Trump? Propose solutions that are better than his. This shouldn’t be all that hard since Trump’s solutions are principally sexism, racism, nationalism and isolationism.
3
@Scott Brown - Elizabeth Warren has been proposing such solutions for years. So did HRC, for that matter.
2
Trump could always dump Pence then add Nicki Haley to the ticket for 2020
2
Not the right kind of woman. Must be Progressive-Left. Helps if she's a minority. Well . . . the right kind of minority. Must be a Progressive-Left-Minority.
1
"Sexism helped elect Trump, might it help re-elect him, too?" Absolutely. Sexist, misogynist, racist leopards don't change their spots in one short election cycle.
3
I have absolutely no doubt that we have qualified women running for President. And no doubt that I can and will vote for a woman, one who represents what I want and need from her.
But... and yeah, here it is... it only took something like 25% of eligible voters, from the right states, to vote down a woman and vote in an idiot. Twenty. Five. Percent.
All the arguments about why a woman can prevail can be countered by that number. Twenty five. Twenty five percent of voters need to energized to countermand 75% who are less energized.
So we need a candidate that will strip just a few hundred thousand votes in the right places, and guarantee turnout everywhere else. Is this the election we gamble that we have a woman who can do that? If you believe that Clinton lost on her own merits, maybe; but if you believe that it was an issue of negative and effective propaganda, and that she was female candidate that did her in, well, that trend will continue.
Choose a nice guy this time, one who is easy to vote for - Bidenesque - and save the big guns for later.
"To see Trump vanquished by a woman would start to heal the injury of his repulsive reign. "
This sentence may be the ONLY reason not to wish Trumputin impeached and convicted.
Either way, either day, will be a national holiday.
Trump was a known entity.....serial philanderer, misogynistic boar, failed businessman (in sense of numerous bankruptcies and inability to borrow money in US), fabled mendacious con artist and malignant narcissist......yet an electoral majority placed him in the White House over arguably the smartest, most experienced and prepared candidate to ever run for POTUS. I won’t accept that Hilary Clinton lost ONLY because she is a woman. I have to believe that whatever alignment of other less tangible factors such as personality flaws, debatable political baggage or quirky national mood will not be present in 2020 and Americans can indeed elect a qualified woman to this highest office. Let’s hope lightening does not strike twice....one term of Trump is already one too many.
1
Whether the candidate is a woman, a minority, both, or an old white man, the person who wins will be the one that isn’t a flaming Socialist. I doubt a Democrat can win the primary without being left of Karl Marx.
1
I'm sorry Ms. Goldberg you're wrong. It wasn't sexism that got Trump elected. It was Ms. Rodham Clinton's incompetent, inept politicking that enabled Trump to win the presidency in 2016.
8
We don't consider it racist that 90% of blacks voted for Obama in the hope of advancing their own interests. We don't consider it racist when a Latino candidate promised to support his people or bring a unique point of view. We don't define a Women's Caucus as sexism. So why is it sexism for men to want to protect and promote their identity group?
5
@WorkingMan - Sexism and Racism happen by the group in power (against those not in power). At least any Sexism and Racism that make a difference in people's lives.
Because it perpetuates the status quo which by definition blocks out other groups. And not all group choices are equal. An all men’s club is discriminatory while a women-only working group is empowering. The Girl Scouts bar males from joining but when the Boy Scouts did the same they were threatened with legal action. Decrying the replacement of working class Irish Americans in Inwood by Dominican Americans is racist but thirty years later, Dominican Americans being displaced by gentrification is the stuff of rallies and political speeches. When women are underrepresented somewhere, like in STEM careers, adjustments are demanded but when men are just 37% of graduating college classes, it goes unnoticed.
If Harris is the Democratic nominee, expect the worst in America to come out. Expect the racists, the cretins, the troglodytes, to come out from under the rocks. Expect the vile racism hidden as faux outrage from Fox News, from Breitbart, from the National Review. Her selection as the Democratic nominee will only further embolden Trump's Million Man Red Hat army. A Black woman from San Francisco, California. For Trump's simpletons, that is the antithesis of what their version of America needs.
Trump's America will reelect Trump with a show of full force if Harris is the nominee. Trump's America, you know, the "Heartland", "God's country", the "Bible Belt". In their eyes, those places are the "real" America. The factory workers, the coal miners, the farmers, the steel workers, the aggrieved unemployed White man yelling about illegal aliens, those people are the "real" Americans. And they will absolutely not let anyone beat Trump without a fight.
Democrats: It is imperative that you choose the best nominee that will beat Trump. That should be the main requirement. If not, you will lose. But most of all, the world will lose. By being subjected to another 4 years of this appalling farce of a presidency.
1
@Caps Guy - I don't consider it a valid argument to keep voting for white males because people are 'troglodytes' (or 'deplorables') or any other negative word.
The only way I see for society to improve it's attitude, in general, is to vote in more people who not white males in sufficient numbers that it is normal and expected. The Democrats are doing that already. The Republicans are not - and are showing themselves to be troglodytes that they are.
I am betting that there are more enlightened voters than unenlightened. Of course, it will help if we don't have media and social media spreading nonsense and ignoring the issues of substance. It will help if we don't have hacked voting systems. Etc.
1
@Caps Guy I agree, if we thought it's ugly now just wait, and wait for Mitch McTurtle to bring forth venom if he is still in power. I fear the only person to beat Bone Spurs is Biden, would love to see the debate. Booker, Beto, Warren, never going to happen. And forget about Kirsten. She who got rid of Franken.
Why is it when males have the conviction that some matter displeasing females it appears to the female a blow to male masculinity?
"...to measure how threats to traditional masculinity affected male voting behavior. The researchers expected many men to lie; the point of the question was to get them thinking about shifting gender roles."
One set of female commentators have the male insensitive because he does not go around shedding tears. Another set of commentators have him callous (anxious) to any female assertion of independence.
Why a constant female match-up of respective female and male abilities? And pitching Cassino as one some how the authority. Cassino et.al. like him are busy being in the news with all manner of surveys. With every set of new survey reports we are led to believe there is a new cerebral discovery. In the instance of this article the commentator duly has males on the ropes for their bleeding hearts.
Males are not matchless. And my own survey shows (from several hundred contacts) that males are not pining over female empowerment. What is thankless is that females must rely on the 'Cassino types' for clever commentary denigrating the male with reports on "threats to traditional masculinity".
A man too can come and fix a disaster caused by men you know.
2
The reason not to run a woman is that she’ll lose . You need to get out of the coastal bubble and meet some white working class voters in swing states. The only one who can beat him is a white male, preferably one who hunts. Sad but true.
3
I held my nose and voted for Hillary 2016 because having worked with The Trump Organization I knew what a nut case Donald was (is).
She lost. Get over it.
Please spare us the revisionist history attempt. Please don't give me this drivel about sexism costing her the election - remember she WON the popular vote. She lost because she thought she was entitled to the Presidency and as a result ran a lousy campaign. Do we remember "deplorables" ? Do we recall her not troubling herself to travel to Wisconsin and Michigan in the late going?
She lost - get over it.
Let's hope that Kamala is a student of history and doesn't repeat Hillary's mistakes.
3
@George in the Swamp I have been saying that since she lost the election and cringed when she made the "deplorable" remark. I knew then that she was going to lose. I too held my nose when I voted for her. The lesser of two evils. The dems need to watch with the identity politics it's what did them in last go round. Harris may well indeed be qualified, but she hasn't a chance. Not with the brown shirts that adore Bone Spurs. Oops I meant red caps.
1
At this point I'd be happy with a Democrat. Any Democrat who is qualified and isn't nuts.
2
Alas, I don't think the three women currently running for president have a chance of winning. The woman who has the best shot of becoming the first woman president is Nikki Hailey.
5
Ms. Goldberg's perspective is very belated and reprises the very binaries that she would ostensibly assail. Approaches such as hers merely plays into the hands of the opposition. But we cannot entirely blame her--America as a nation is playing catchup with many other countries who have seized the vanguard on a host of social issues.
The women I would most have liked to see as President: Jeane Kirkpatrick, Dianne Feinstein, Nikki Haley. And there are others, just not among the current Democratic crop.
Unfortunately, two of them are not available.
Again, no suggestions about what to do about the reality described... Wow. So let's try to promote some affirmative action in support of a female candidate.
The most important single thing that must be done is that all supporters of a woman as the Democratic candidate must urge all candidates to make a pledge that they will actively support whoever wins the Democratic nomination - man or woman - and that they will make themselves available for appointment to any post in that candidates government.
The problem with the American political system is that it does not require political loyalty from presidential candidates. What more minimal standard for consideration as a candidate could there be than a pledge to support the party that the candidate is asking for its nomination?
The Democrats need to run as a party. I would go so far, if I were advising Kamala Harris, for example, to state right now that if elected, she would ask every other Democratic candidate who garnered more than 10% support in the primaries to take a position in the new government. Harris should declare she will ask Warren to serve as Secretary of State and Gillibrand to serve as Secretary of Homeland Security.
What's needed more than anything for Democrats to win is party loyalty. If all the Sanders supporters had voted for Clinton, Trump would not be president. If a decent person must put Country before Party and before Self, then any candidate will promise to serve as required, no matter what happens.
You are right Ms Goldberg. Sexism helped elect Trump. Hilary's ground game, or lack of it in key states, also helped elect Trump. Oh, and let's not forget about her "degenerates" comment. Oh, and also the sense of entitlement that she carried. Oh, and also subverting Bernie Sander's campaign as revealed through the email scandal (resulting in Wasserman's resignation). I could go on and on but I hope you get the point: sexism was one part in many parts that helped Trump get elected. I hope you understand that many of us independents really wanted to vote for Clinton, but in the end we performed our civic duty and voted for third party candidates. You can run many qualified female candidates against Trump. Just make sure the Democrats don't make the same grave mistakes they made in 2016.
4
Ever since Michelle Goldberg's column "Corrupt Bargain with the Adults in the Room", https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/opinion/columnists/kavanaugh-trump-kamala-harris-anonymous.html
where she pointed out Kamala Harris questioning Brett Kavanaugh on whether he had met with Trump's lawyers about the Mueller investigation, I've been in awe of the senator.
She is one tough cookie, and in my humble opinion, the only one who won't wilt or look weak against Trump. I've considered all the other possible candidates including the "might run" ones, and I'm convinced she is the best bet for President.
3
Badgering nominees for five minutes at a pop is her claim to fame? That makes her tough? Is that all she's done? Is that it?
4
False equivalent: Gillebrand is not in same League as Harris & Warren as a potential winning Candidate.
More like Gabbarrd with confusing comments. But more so because too many of DEMS saw the treatment of Franken has an unsavory maneuver.
3
What am I missing? Dems need a candidate who can win against Trump. The article points out that "support for Trump correlates with higher levels of “hostile sexism” — the view that women are not just different than men, but inferior." So what does that suggest the Dem candidate should be? It's wishful thinking that somehow this hostility will be overwhelmed by the fantastic leadership qualities of some impressive Dem female candidate. Sure, Obama won against racist sentiment, but his opposition at that time wasn't particularly formidable and he was half white. We are in an era of attacks and lies. Remember Trump walking into the personal space of Hillary during a televised debate? What was the message he was conveying to the viewing audience? He will make the same subtleties along with outright sexist attacks to convey that a woman is not qualified. As the Economist mag states (paraphrased) "If Trump supporters are as racist and sexist as Dems think they are, what does that indicate as far as selecting a candidate who can attract some of those votes?" Dems can't afford to lose the next election. Too much damage will be done with another Trump term. The most important thing is to win the election, whatever it takes. Dems can't afford wishful thinking. The best candidate is the one who can win.
2
Don’t do that. Don’t run headlines that degrade the value of half of the population.
May the best woman win, even if the best woman up for office is not as good as the best man? Isn’t this blatant sexism?
I am supporting Sherrod Brown because he is the best PERSON for the job. My second choice is Warren, but I do have concerns about whether she can win, just as I have concerns whether Sanders can win.
This relentless bashing of men is going to cost us, and quite frankly it should. Women are mothers of sons, sisters of brothers, daughters of dads, and we don’t appreciate our loved ones being relegated to the trash bin simply because of their gender. Women carrying “BELIEVE WOMEN” signs turn off more people than they motivate. Why? Because those signs actually mean “DON’T BELIEVE MEN.” When did justice become blind to an entire gender?
Some of us choose to believe truth without checking between its legs first. Some of us believe that true equality means we resist exhalting one gender’s moral worth over another’s. Just stop it.
7
I've said it before, and I agree the current crop of candidates are well qualified in some areas, that the country is way too racist and anti-woman to elect someone like Harris. She does, however, have attributes that some Republicans would like as has been outlined today in NYT. I disagree with Goldberg. It is way too soon for the American electorate generally to accept a woman President, particularly one who is brown as well. And, yes I've been a Democrat since 1970, so you can call me a clueless old guy if you like.
Ms. Goldberg is on point, as usual, but let's cut to the chase, shall we.
No woman will lead the Democratic ticket this go 'round, I'm sorry to say. Many reasons why, not the least being the DNC will not stake a female candidate for president. Stinks to high heaven but winning is critical and a female lead would be perceived as too risky.
Here's your ticket: Sherrod Brown for President and Elizabeth Warren for VP.
Maybe not everyone's cup of tea but when it comes to electoral politics, it's high time Democrats act like Republicans and do whatever it takes to WIN, all other considerations secondary.
3
This country may not survive another token as president. Obama near doomed us to someone like Trump in his inability to do anything other than sound Presidential.
This woman has no political experience. She is on OJT as a Senator and she wants to be President because she deserves it?
May the best woman do what the best men do: earn their accolades and positions. Not shuffle into them because they are black or female.
May the best candidate win. That rules Harris out.
1
Democratic socialism...charismatic women leaders...We, the denizens of third world, have been there done that. All we ever saw were hot wars, cold wars, civil wars, terrorism, insurgencies... and of course moribund economy. Only thing that really works is a leader ( irrespective of color, religion, gender) with clear economic vision and gumption to enforce that vision. And a population who supports such a leader, without being distracted by social issues. After all , economic injustice is the mother of all social injustices.
This article doesn't examine the benefits that some women perceive themselves gaining from "patriarchy" and why a slight majority of white women voted for Trump. Race and class matter as well.
If Democrats insist on making _everything_ about gender 24-7 they will lose again in 2020. Gender has nothing to do with morality or whether someone is an effective leader or not. And I voted for women in the last two presidential elections. The sneering moral superiority that Clinton and some of her supporters displayed was a turnoff to a lot of men. And men still vote.
2
Kamala Harris is exactly who I want to see run. I think she will face Nicki Haley.
No normal, healthy man wants to be led by a woman. Look at the mainline protestant churches, which are feminized and shrinking and dying. Having Harris or Warren as the nominee will hand the election to Trump. A Biden-Harris ticket, that might work. Gillibrand is so unprincipled I hope she doesn't get within 10 miles of the nomination.
1
"There are many explanations for Clinton’s loss, including her campaign’s mistakes, Russian hacking and James Comey’s blundering investigation of her email server. But sexism pretty clearly played a role."
You missed the #1 reason - Hillary Clinton.
4
While neither Michelle, nor the “Times”, may agree, “my voice” take on an effective strategy & strategic narrative that Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, or any other principled progressive woman candidate could well use to resolve the three-way conflict that the 2016 campaigns of Trump, Clinton, and Sanders presented for an essential revolutionary change that must occur in 2020:
Emperor Trump of course represented male dominated Empire for the ‘rougher-talking’ neocon ‘R’ Vichy Party, Hillary represented a novel female approach for entrenched deceit of the ‘smoother-lying’ neoliberal con ‘D’ Vichy Party, while Sanders represented revolutionary-lite change with his sincere, but vague two-word sound-bite of “Political Revolution” (Against what, Bernie?).
So this triad (try aide) in ‘16 is potentially (re)solvable if, and only if, any seriously left progressive social(ist) democracy-thinking woman candidate strongly eschews both faux-Emperor Trump’s scam role for the real Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which rules ‘we the American an people’ now, exposes Hillary’s dollar-drenched, if powerful role as faux ‘Empress in waiting’, and strengthens Bernie’s populist progressive promises by actually running an overt, principled, and serious campaign of ‘exposing’, confronting, continuing, and completing our original American “Revolution Against Empire” [Justin du Rivage] by leading the people in a peaceful people’s “Political/economic and social Revolution Against Empire”.
The idea that men responded negatively to the concept of losing their role as breadwinner is twisted. It's not a sexist reaction, but a realistic one. When women fail to show a preference for men as the breadwinner in a relationship (empirically, anecdotally, whatever), let men know. In the meantime, men aren't going to gamble their lives, families and relationship prospects on the idea that they aren't expected to bring home the bacon. Any attempt to undermine a man's earnings power is a threat in a world where he is expected to put the family on his back. And the victim isn't him - it's his kids. So until women explicitly and forcefully express a broadbased affirmation of the alternative, don't expect men to go "stay at home Dad" en masse. In the meantime, we'll continue to read the studies that show women marry a man who is seen as a provider. I guess sexism works both ways.
Democrats keep thinking Trump or Pence, but if their impeachment/resignation dreams come true, they could be faced with a far different candidate: One with legislative and executive experience who also knows foreign affairs. A woman of color, born in the USA to immigrants. A resident and major vote-getter in a Trump state. Nikki Haley.
Would Democratic women vote for Nikki Haley if she ran against Bernie, Booker, Biden, Beto, Gavin, or another Democratic male candidate, if Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, A O-C, or another woman were eliminated in the primaries?
May the Best Woman or Man Win !
I was hoping Kamala Harris would wait another 4 years, she is young compared to Sanders, Biden, trump and so on.
Let`s see who Kamala Harris is
Bi racial highly educated Woman but is running as Black. So Blacks might go with her.
Mother is Asian Indian, so Asian Indians might be thrilled to go with her.
She is stunning…men will drool ( just kidding).
Highly educated , does not shy away from questioning to set any candidates straight. That was always a pain for all those republican men who are not used to have a woman to argue with them ot put them in their place.
1
The New York Times editors seem unanimous in their conviction that they would rather the Democrats lose with the “right” politically correct moderate “minority” candidate than actually support the one minority candidate who can beat Trump nationally. But that minority candidate apparently doesn’t count, because he is, apparently, the wrong minority and does not attend synagogue services regularly enough to pass the muster.
What gives, editors? Are we ever going to have a frank discussion in this paper about the blatant hostility towards the one non-Christian in the Democratic field?
1
Kamala Harris is just another in a long line of Neoliberal clones that speak eloquently, saying all the right things and pushing all the carefully researched talking points. Sadly she has demonstrated a proclivity to tilt towards the donor class. One glaring example is her failure to prosecute Steven Mnuchin’s OneWest Bank for foreclosure violations in 2013, with no explanation save: “We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made. “We pursued it just like any other case. We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.” But most rational observers must come to another conclusion. We know Mnuchin is Donald Trump’s cabinet member who runs the Treasury Department. We know he served as CEO of OneWest from 2009 to 2015, and we know prosecutors at the California attorney general’s office said they had found over a thousand violations of foreclosure laws by his bank during that time, and predicted that further investigation would uncover many thousands more.
We also know that the investigation into what the memo called “widespread misconduct” was closed after Harris’s office declined to file a civil enforcement action against the bank. A quick look at Harris' campaign contributions sheds light on her decision not to pursue criminal charges.....
We don't need more politicians who know how to do a favor for their wealthy donors.... Washington is awash with these cretins...
3
Full disclosure: I write this as a 60 year old white guy. I voted for Hillary, and am happy to entertain a vote for any of the senators who have declared. We don't need an old white guy like Bernie to defeat the old misogynist in the White House. I used to think that, but no longer. White suburban men? Don't worry about them. We need to bring along white suburban women, and that combined with everyone who voted for Hillary will be more than enough to rid us of this idiotic Presidency, and start getting things done again.
1
Fifty-three percent of white women voted for Trump. I'll just leave that there as you discuss how this was men's fault.
1
This is the most ridiculous article I have ever read. Trump is not weak! If he gets the wall he will win. Every Democrat I have talked to says that. His base is not leaving him. Middle Americans and Midwesterners vote with their wallet. Do you think they care if it is a woman or a man that is running the country? No one cares about New Jersey- it's going blue either way. Give me a break. in the states that matter, Trump will get the moderates- and it's not because of sexism. It's because activists like you do not care about the issues at hand- only "sexism", "racism", and transgender bathrooms. You are missing the movement because of your hatred for Donald Trump.
4
As a feminist, this silly argument that Americans won’t vote for a woman president is just dumb. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. She lost the Presidency because was she too smug to worry about Midwest. That same hubris felled Romney too.
I think that just like the gap year we send our kids on all over the world to learn about other cultures and see how they live, it would be an excellent idea that journalists from the east coast and commentators in these pages go to the American Heartland and actually live among them. Perhaps you wouldn’t all be so blindly pompous then.
4
She list the Midwest because of voter role purges and voter ID laws designed specifically to disenfranchise those who vote Democrat.
I would vote for a woman who was a governor. Not a congresswoman not a senator for they have led nothing, they have little expertise in day to day governance. If you check your historical facts, few of the previously mentioned have ever been elected to the presidency. Governors on the other hand make up a large share. Veeps are a mixed bag. TR was good, Coolidge not so. Truman OK. Johnson OK. All got in through death of their boss. Kennedy was a senator. He probably would not have been re- elected. Before he died, he was about to be investigated for having an affair with an East German. Likely a spy.
And yet isn't it weird that in this misogynist nation, Nancy Patricia Pelosi is Speaker of the United States House of Representatives 2nd in line to the President. So, maybe this country isn't as misogynist as the writer thinks. Maybe it's more about the candidates than she thinks.
2
Sexism didn’t elect Trump. College educated women voted for him. Why can’t you admit Hillary was horrible?
6
Ok Michelle, let's go over it again, what history has taught us that you apparently have not learned.
A woman can become president and the three most important things she can do to help assure it are:
1-Run as an American and not a woman.
2-Run as an American and not a woman.
3-Run as an American and not a woman.
Yes there is a great deal of resentment among men in this country especially white men but there is also a great deal of resentment of women in this country, mainly white women who feel the same way men feel, ie hate identity politics.
Only the extremes, right wing bigots and left wing feminist love identity politics.
The rest of the country hates it.
Hillary did not learn the lesson and was cast onto the dust heap of history.
Obama learned the lesson, ran and served as an American and not a black man and served two terms.
2
Hillary Clinton did not run as a woman. She NEVER brought up her gender in any speech, debate or ad campaign.
1
@Suzanna-Thank you for your reply. I refer you to a comment she made halfway thru the race against Trump when she was asked if she made a mistake running as a woman instead of an American like Obama did ie an American and not a black man.
She said her mistake was that she did not emphasize her gender enough.
It sealed her doom. I knew at that moment she turned victory into a defeat.
1
First, may the best candidate be a woman.
While neither Michelle, nor the “Times”, may agree, “my voice” take on an effective strategy & strategic narrative that Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, or any other principled progressive woman candidate could well use to resolve the three-way conflict that the 2016 campaigns of Trump, Clinton, and Sanders presented for an essential revolutionary change that must occur in 2020:
Emperor Trump of course represented male dominated Empire for the ‘rougher-talking’ neocon ‘R’ Vichy Party, Hillary represented a novel female approach for entrenched deceit of the ‘smoother-lying’ neoliberal con ‘D’ Vichy Party, while Sanders represented revolutionary-lite change with his sincere, but vague two-word sound-bite of “Political Revolution” (Against what, Bernie?).
So this triad (try aide) in ‘16 is potentially (re)solvable if, and only if, any seriously left progressive social(ist) democracy-thinking woman candidate strongly eschews both faux-Emperor Trump’s scam role for the real Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which rules ‘we the American an people’ now, exposes Hillary’s dollar-drenched, if powerful role as faux ‘Empress in waiting’, and strengthens Bernie’s populist progressive promises by actually running an overt, principled, and serious campaign of ‘exposing’, confronting, continuing, and completing our original American “Revolution Against Empire” [Justin du Rivage] by leading the people in a peaceful people’s “Political/economic and social Revolution Against Empire”.
1
This piece is childish and overheated. American women have a “boot on their necks”? Please.
Plenty of Americans, men and women, will vote for a good candidate. That means someone, male or female, who will address this country’s problems. Someone who will work for the common good—rather than indulge in identity politics.
4
Even this early, I just cannot even consider looking at Sen. Gillibrand. Put in in the "because of Franken" crowd. I'm a "me-too-er" (find a woman who isn't), but Gillibrand seemed to suspend any judicial temperament, seemed out for blood, and seems to mesh everything together, ie: rape=sexual harassment=sexual joking, etc., with NO allowance for people to have evolved from past rather tasteless behavior, which Franken clearly had. For what it's worth, my (biggest) "me-too" incident was sexual harassment, and it was severe with severe consequences for my life. Still, listening to Gillibrand equate rape with sexual harassment, I was horrified and disgusted. I would never, ever have sat down with a rape victim and liken my experience with hers. Why not just equate murder with battery? No to Gillibrand. Harris is the one who has my attention right now. Warren lacks the savvy I think a woman needs to defeat Trump. Harris is a wonderful combination of very smart and suffering fools gladly. Trump is a fool. Harris has to glad needed to oppose the fool.
1
Didn't the dems run a female in 2016?
Or is Hillary Clinton not considered a woman?
Just wow. This thing drips with sexist rhetoric. A veritable flood of stereotypes. So sad.
2
Kamala Harris with either Joe Kennedy, Beto O'Rourke or Julian Castro would be a powerful ticket.
1
Readers are glad to see Michelle's least fatuous article even if her grudge against the American President controls her every thought.
I love the idea of the most socialist contenders coming to the voters asking to be believed and trusted. These individuals deserve to know just what real people think of them.
Another amusing piece by Ms. Goldberg driven by her paranoid obsession that Trump's win was due to misogynist attitudes. He won because he won the electoral college by appealing to Americans, male and female. Your lightweight female candidates, who have no qualifications other than their gender will fail.
According to one source, Harris is a black version of Hillary Clinton: she talks a good game, selling progressive ideas, but she's really a conservative, establishment democrat. No thanks. Then, there is Gillibrand. Like Nixon and his use of the red scare, she tossed Franken under her bus to the White House over some bad jokes. No, only Liz Warren has the integrity to be a female president.
3
Sometimes Michelle Goldberg is right on, but sometimes the reflex gender politics reaches baloney level. Give Hillary Clinton credit for her ideas, please! War on crime, mass incarceration of 'superpredators', wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria, deposing a democratic progressive president in Honduras, dalliance with Wall St gazillioanires and Hollywood moguls, NAFTA enthusiasm and utter disdain for workers... She had lots of ideas. But for die-hard Clintonians there is misogyny and 300 other reasons she lost-- never including what she actually stood for.
So what do the current women stand for? Aside from Warren, not much besides that they are interested in the job and in Gilibrand's case that she has many spots she can change. The women (and men) of America would be better off with Sanders than with any of them.
4
Sexism and misogyny were not at the heart of HRC's "shellacking" at the hands of The Donald in 2016, but her condescending attitude towards average Americans, evidenced by her characterization of us, before a crowd of wealthy donors who laughed alongside her as she used the words "deplorable," and the influence peddling of the Clinton Foundation--some called it "Clinton Crime Foundation"because anything was possible if you had the money, her screwup as a campaigner--average crowd was 347--and the superiority of The Donald as a speaker, entertainer, and ability to push the right buttons, appeal to the anger of the most marginalized among us. Trump had "it,"which is why thousands turned out for his rallies. Voters sensed in him what was lacking in HRC and in her campaign staff, led by Mook whose definition of a ground game was to send volunteers out, throw wonky position papers on people's porches, but w/o a follow up.( Bruni wrote about this in a column.) People don't like to be talked down to, and a vote for Trump was also a repudiation, not only of HRC but of Obama who also was patronizing, haughty!IDENTITY POLITICS makes tedious listening and wearisome reading.MG is less of an analyst and more of a cheerleader! Who needs that?
4
Goldberg's article is all well and good - but what is she going to do about the more than 80 million women who voted for Trump?
2
Hillary's problem wasn't that she was a woman; it was that she was a Clinton.
5
Sexism helped defeat Hillary Clinton and female chauvinism will help defeat Donald Trump.
1
Sexism didn't elect Trump. The Clintons and their trainload of corrupt baggage did. Had the Clintons and their minions in the party leadership not sabotaged Bernie Sanders we would now have an honorable man from Vermont i the White House.
3
Lesson not learned.
Most important to run the most qualified person that can win. Your article is sexist and analysis of an election, naive.
3
I hate having to say this, but it’s the hard reality of our times.
The GOP/FOX/Coulter/Limbaugh lie and smear, mudthrowing machine has become so well-tuned during the Obama years that any candidate who is a woman or from a visible minority is unelectable. The same dynamic applies to any candidate whose policies or personal history can be labelled “socialist”.
A non-white woman like Kamala Harris, despite having a recent history of support for conservative policies like the death penalty, starts with two strikes against her and an 0-2 count.
The DP needs to run a relatively young (I.e. not eligible for Social Security), moderate white man - one who is from a “purple” state, and not a member of the “coastal elites”.
Sadly, anyone else would be doomed, as America would be doomed to four more years of kakistocracy.
If she wins the nomination she will be another light weight candidate vs Trump
Both Kamala and Elizabeth are great candidates. I would vote for any candidate except Kirsten G, whose actions towards Al Franken won't be forgiven or forgotten.
Trump is obviously a misogynist cretin. But I suspect very few people (Clinton's "deplorables") voted for him because of that. If you listen to people on the Republican right, you know that it's widely accepted that "political correctness" and identity obsession are considered worse problems than any prejudice, so I think they, in their minds, are usually voting against the former, rather than for the latter.
I think it's misguided for voters to discount behavior & attitudes as extreme as Trump's. But there's a point to be made about political correctness, though not in the way that the Right makes it. The Left, or at least the Media Left ("Left" for want of a better classification), focuses all its energy on attitudes and prejudices, as if you think you're going to improve the world by convincing people how evil they are. As if the thing that's wrong about violence or poverty is the identity of the victim, instead of their humanity. Politics is about laws & policies that affect everyone. It's about dollars & cents, not purity of the soul.
2
Well, tell you one thing.
Women are going to be candidates for POTUS in 2020. So those who have headed the Women’s Marches, darn well better get their acts together and do what it takes to unify all women. The time has come. Many claim the marches are no longer a “movement” - but as in 2017 - they should be!
If the present Women’s March “leaders” need to step down, step down, they’re not royalty with unending reigns. If new leaders need to indeed reign, and they do, pick those who will refuse to divide and then hold them to it. Marches, join forces then, stop the confusion of where various marches exist and/or what they stand for.
In other words - women stop the stupid bickering, become stable again under proper and prosperous leadership, and get your act together! Women cannot afford to lose unity in 2020 - this year was proof! We can unify and be powerful, it has to be.
Sure.
Nikki Haley for president.
1
The fact that several women have declared their intention to run is just SO cool. After 2016, I think there’s an advantage in the Democratic Party nominating a woman, and it’s gratifying there are so many qualified, viable candidates. I will vote for the person I think will do the best job, and, at this point, it looks like that person’s going to be a woman.
Let's see. In 2016 Trump got 62% if the male vote--a number inflated by sexism, you say. Well then, let's compare with Romney, who ran against a man. In 2012, Romney got 62% of the male vote. Hmmm....
I'm a man and I voted for Hillary, even though I can't stand the Clintons and never voted for Bill. On the other hand, 25 million women voted for Trump.
2
Four women have announced. One more may and if she does Sen. Amy Klobuchar will be hands down the most qualified and prepared among them to be president with far wider appeal than any of the announced four.
Indeed, Sen. Klobuchar is perhaps the most compelling, most prepared and most able of all possible presidential candidates in her party, certainly so for any under the age of 70 and no one over 70 should be running much less nominated.
Yes Joe Biden is arguable the most well prepared and a greatly popular figure but he would be nearly 83 when he ran for reelection in 2024, which is preposterous.
No, Sen. Klobuchar has indicated interest but not yet really shown her hand. If she raises it to say she is in the contest, it will change everything for everyone.
Oh, and given that all those who would be variously offended, horrified or vehement against the notion will vote for Trump anyway, if there is going to be a woman at the top of the ticket for Democrats then why not two women on the ticket.
In more than 50 U.S. elections for president and vice president there have been women on a major party ticket exactly three times. After more than 100 two men tickets why not two women?
No reason at all why not and many reasons to say yes to a two-woman ticket.
I voted for Hillary Clinton (and Bill, back in the day). I had no doubt that she was qualified and Trump isn't. Not mentioned in this article is the drag on Hillary's campaign and her arguments against Trump that Bill Clinton's behavior certainly exerted. Even though I continued to support Bill Clinton through his presidency, his extracurricular activities always ticked me off. It could be argued (and has been) that his affairs cost two Democrats the White House - Al Gore and Hillary.
1
it should be remembered that the sexism of under-educated white women helped elect Trump. i sincerely hope that it will be a woman who brings him down.
2
Many women resented Hillary’s ’ success and were jealous of her, finding reasons to
Justify voting against her
Very sad!
2
No, Michelle, sexism did not help elect Trump. Hillary Clinton did.
5
'Trump could be the man to wreck the country so badly that Americans will be willing to let a woman save it.' Kind of what happened with Dubya perhaps. He was such a disaster that America let a black man attempt the clean up, probably confident that he'd fail. Indeed, Mitch McConnell and his cronies put their faith and every effort into that hope. When Obama actually reversed much of the disaster perpetrated on us and the rest of the world by Bush, this was just too much for many Americans to accept. So they denied Obama's accomplishments and replaced him with a showman of all showmen, someone who would claim credit for Obama's good work while smearing his predecessor with vile racist slurs. Will history repeat itself?
1
There is tremendous pent up anger in white males. They are barraged non stop by women in society right now. Toxic masculinity is the latest. Men show patience and self restraint. They also have intense focus and resolve. They vote and take voting seriously. They are according to the original constitution the principals of our country. When they walk in the voter's booth they will unleash that anger. There will not be a woman elected for a very long time in America. History shows, black men were emancipated long before women. The raucous behavior of women will keep them where they are, wishing and wanting.
What most of these women have that Hillary didn't is the absence of 25 years of hatred in the right wing aimed at them (Socrates also mentions this) which turned her into a harpy, medusa, and witch rolled up into one. Even liberal women that I know were, I believe, caught up in that propaganda (as for men, the less said the better).
The right wing propaganda machine has yet to turn their sights on these women, except perhaps for Warren who, unfortunately, has been in the public eye too long to escape the misogynistic attacks.
I don't know if the left, the old left or the new, has yet come up with an effective antidote.
1
You say "glass cliff" I say "help me mommy"
I voted Clinton in 2016, and will happily vote for a woman again in a general election. My fear of a 2016 repeat and the misogyny of the american pop will probably deter me from voting for a Dem woman in the primary.
The idealist in me hates this, but the realist in me, who is terrified of the nuclear, unscrupulous idiocy on the right is willing to admit that i'm discriminating based out of fear.
It's going to take one heck of a woman candidate, with cogent and clear forward vision to get me to risk Trump 2 and bet against the proven hatred of women shown by the men and women of all colors in America.
"The chameleon-like Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, is also running; she’s a onetime darling of the Sanders left who now says Democrats need to compromise more with Trump."
This qualifier is as unnecessary to your article as "The chameleon-like Kirsten Gillibrand of Wall Street, is also running; she'ss a onetime darling of Big Tobacco and racist conservatives outside of Albany who now says she's Elizabeth Warren."
5
Amy Klobuchar for President.
The real deal.
2
I can think of several reasons why somebody wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton and sexism isn't even near the top of the list. But if that's the hill you want to die on, insisting she only lost because of sexism, then be my guest. I think feminists can do better for a first woman president than Clinton though.
2
@Joel
I think if you read all these comments, you’ll see that sexism was definitely a factor.
Let's also not forget that Hilary was a bad candidate with a toxic brand and a sexist husband herself. Trump, even with the Russians, barely one and this time a two state victory will be thoroughly investigated.
1
mis·an·dry
/miˈsandrē/Submit
noun
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men.
It’s amazing to read article after article demonstrating such overt prejudice against a group of people based on their gender.
Ironically, the same people roundly criticizing American culture claiming its racist and sexist are demonstrating how free, non-racist and non-sexist the culture as it provides the freedom, equality and economic opportunity to support such critcism.
Sadly, these perpetual “victims” cannot acknowledge their hypocrisy as to do so would deny them the benefits of being a “victim.”
4
So you’re conceding that Clinton was a bad candidate who was subjected to Russian propaganda and Comey’s unprecedented bungling (not to mention a devastating primary opponent) but “sexism pretty clearly played a role”? That’s a stretch.
If these female candidates run on the issues and don’t make it all about their gender they will be just fine.
3
Let us hope that the right women is chosen... not someone who is forced upon the democratic party because she thought she was the second coming
2
As a father with 3 highly educated and successful daughters, I say "bring it on". More women will vote and more than nullify the misogynist vote.
1
With the Democrat party now exhibiting open contempt for men who do not fall in line with their ideology, I would expect Trump to garner an even larger share of the male vote in 2020, causing real problems for the Democrat nominee regardless of their gender.
Add to that the women who are tired of seeing their male children viewed as "toxic", guilty until proven innocent in sexual assault cases, or simply threatened with violence for wearing a red hat, and the female percentage could go up as well.
3
I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 primarily because she was a woman and I felt that a woman needed to be president. I will never do that again. The shamelessly condescending strategy the Democrats are now employing across the country to put forth candidates that we are expected to vote for because they fall into a specific identity category will fail. And it should. 2016 was the first and the last time I will ever fall for such a ridiculous sham.
4
If the news media including the Times gives Trump as much free and favorable political coverage as it did in the 2016 campaign it will tilt the election toward Republicans again. When Trump got the attention his policies, the wall, Muslim ban, & strong military were front and center. When Clinton was showcased it was mostly about her emails or some other faux scandal.
Warren is the only one who really has a platform ; addressing the inequality , the abuse of the American consumer and as a woman has been subjected to ridicule by Trump and others . Instead of criticizing her for the DNA test ( remember how Trump forced Obama to produce his birth certificate) and has a real record of accomplishments . She was instrumental in creating the Consumer Protection Agency (which Trump disbanded) Pocahontas (both of them )are women of steel . She has been unwavering at the abuses the banks and Wall Street have perpetrated against Americans . She is very qualified .
2
Jung said it is far easier to integrate the shadow (Obama) than it is to integrate the anima (Clinton.) Owning your repressed side is easier than owning your feminine side (as a man.) Since this problem is extremely deep psychologically, I think one option, and it might be a dangerous one, is to enlighten the voting population to the dreaming of invasion and burglary in the case of the shadow, and the dreams of sick, diseased, helpless etc females and children, in the dreams of the electorate. I hesitate to mention this as no Jungians have come forward to describe this phenomenon. I don't know if it is dangerous or not. Always reminds me of Mrs. Jelkes in "Night of the Iguana" when Burton tells Ava Gardner not to press the issue.
We MUST keep in mind that the popular vote does NOT matter.
What matters is how the candidates will fare in the 5 or so swing states Clinton barely lost and the 5 or so she barely hung on to.
It's all about the Electoral College.
I'm sick of the EC but we're stuck with it for the moment. It's unlikely enough states will sign on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in time, which would legally bypass the EC. But fellow readers, if your state is considering the compact, read up on it and if you like the idea, please let your Governor and State representatives know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
1
Harris and Gillibrand are toxic feminists willing to forego due process and the presumption of innocence to pander to the #metoo movement. Warren grotesquely mishandled her native American family tradition. It is impossible to imagine that any of the three could hold up to a full Trump assault.
3
This article presupposes that white women voted for Hillary. But they didn’t.
3
May the best candidate win must be the goal, instead of promoting gender politics idiocy.
At the moment, I may vote for Elizeabeth Warren becuase she created the CFPB and understands middle-class economic issues better than Gilly Milly and overly ambitious Kamala Harris.
4
Sexism didn’t help the appalling Donald Trump.
The corruption, venality, and duplicity of the female candidate who ran against Trump helped Trump.
If Democrats ran an honest candidate of any sex against DJT in 2016, The Donald is a footnote.
2
No, sexism isn't why Trump won. Anyone that believes that lives in a liberal bubble.
The best woman who could become president is Nikki Haley.
2
The Democrats need to narrow the candidates list down. Get specific, get targeted, get after 45.
Find someone as competent as Ms Merkel and the US shall have a woman President.
2
Hilarys problem is that she was TOO Familiar during a time in the countrys history where Americans are wary of Washington and its Career Politicians. This is also partly why President Obama was elected, as he was an outsider at the time. There are plenty of qualified women who would make a great President. Nikki Haley, Condoleezza Rice are two that come to mind.
But It saddens me that the old "Paper of Record" (when was the last time the gray lady was referred to as this?) would feature a women who considered Brian Buescher solely for being a Catholic disqualified for judgeship, so i am concluding a Catholic President would offend her greatly. Imagine her outcry if she said this about ANY OTHER religion
Thank Goodness she wasn't around during President Kennedys campaign. She would be out-front with the bigots who said he was unqualified due soley to his religion
2
gender bias exists; in this case against men, by the author.
The study she cites in a journal that seems pseudo-scientific. I urge you to read the "study" directly, and look for any statistical analysis as well as bias in writing.
One excerpt from the "study" which doesn't even bother to mention sample size "Masculinity is a brittle thing: strong, but intolerant of flexibility".
Cassino, who the author quotes, has made a career whipping up sentiment amongst progressives. His only published book is a rant against Fox News. An academic researcher who understands science and statistics? Judge fer yourselves, with skeptical minds.
2
Having two X chromosomes makes you a woman, not a "women's candidate". Having stood by her man and having hypocritically besmirched every female who accused him of sexual misbehavior Hilary was in no position to stand for women's rights. She had sold her soul for advancement and taking the moral high ground vs. Trump was a reach. Perhaps a woman without her baggage would actually stand a chance
3
Frankly, as a man, I think women are better leaders.
- They show more empathy, they are less corrupt and arrogant.
- Let's have women run the world.
- They couldn't possibly do any worse than men had done for ages.
- I am still saddened that world would never see a President HRC.
1
Harris demonstrated remarkable sobriety and veracity--she was cool, brilliant, tough-minded--compared to the histrionic, dishonest, unfit, fragile and belligerent Kavanaugh. The men who still buy into the old sexist gender roles are just so darned fragile. In the study cited here, men changed their preferences on the spot based on the possibility that in some households, maybe even their own, the women out-earn the men. Lordy. The white men who supported Trump are frightened of losing their unearned and unmerited white male entitlements and prerogatives. Men like Kavanaugh apparently believe their set of entitlements includes the right to sexually assault young women. Men who think along those lines live in constant fear of losing their macho status, which is easy to lose and heard to acquire. And yet these male failings are part of why we have for our president an unfit man and a miserable human being who is doing irreparable damage to our democracy and nation. We as a nation cannot afford any more of this silly male frailty and fear.
I believe men are tougher, stronger and generally better as people once they find the wherewithal to begin to jettison all of that senseless destructive baggage.
1
Since the president is the commander and chief of the armed forces, perhaps we should have a woman head up the joint chiefs of staff? It is perhaps this duty of the presidency which many feel is ill-suited to the present field of female candidates.
The only choice that I will make in 2020 is which of these women is the best candidate. I have no problem supporting male candidates who support equal rights but it is past time for an intelligent, experienced woman to clean up the present mess. Fortunately there are now women who are prepared and equipped to be excellent national leaders who can work with both men and women to restore our government.
The fundamental problem in 2016 was that the Democratic base was so insistent that it was time for a woman president that they embraced a deeply flawed, though highly competent, candidate despite all the signs she was toxic to a huge chunk of the electorate. Let's focus on finding the candidate who can generate excitement, regardless of what gender or ethnicity they are. If that person is a woman or a minority, great, but let's not let ideology get in the way of pragmatic results.
8
K. Harris has the wrong track record as a public servant. She has made a name for herself by challenging the Trump Administration, which is fine but merely opposing Trump's isn't enough; what does she actually stand for? Gilibrand is nearly unheard of outside of NY, and again what does she stand for? I think that Sen. Warren is likely the most qualified and popular candidate among the entire group of contenders, including men. Her message and agenda have been consistent and clearly articulated.
4
Unfortunately, I do not believe that, at the present time, American is ready to elect a woman president even though there are at least two outstanding women who are either running or are likely to run - Ms. Warren and Ms. Klobachar; therefore, I would like to see a Democratic ticket with a very strong male candidate for president and an outstanding female candidate for vice president. The upcoming presidential election is, in my opinion, the most important and consequential election in the last 100 years. Mr. Trump's behavior has, beyond doubt, attempted to denigrate and destroy a number of the most important pillars of our democracy, including the press, the judiciary, the FBI, equal treatment for all minorities, rational immigration policy, and parts of the intelligence community. It is, therefore, imperative that the Democrats put together a ticket that can win.
1
@Mathman314 Bloomberg/Klobuchar would win. And I'm a Republican.
1
@JDL
Can anyone reading this perceive any reason whatsoever to listen to the advice of someone who in 2019 still refers to himself as a Republican?
2
25,000.000 women voted for Trump. I'm not going to put much faith in their judgment.
3
So basically you are co-opting the “us v. them” philosophy of Donald Trump to advance a feminist agenda.
4
I'd be delighted to vote for the best qualified candidate and it would be nice if it was a woman.
Kirsten Gillibrand is not it.
I will never vote for her.
She is part of the problem, not the solution. She needs to slink back into the hole she crawled out from and leave people of good character alone.
4
Hey Goldberg: no need to disparage the best female candidate of the lot. What is it with you political/media corporate elitist that you cannot be respectful of someone not in the pocket of the lobbyist class?
Let us people make a choice after we get to know the candidates, without your putting your journalistic thumb on the scale. Tulsi Gabbard is a combat veteran who understands the use of force and the consequences; she's been in combat while corporate shills like yourself hide behind your laptops. She's also beholden to no one, so she's a bit of a free-thinker.
Are you going to bring up Harris's affair with the married mayor of San Francisco? How about Gillibrand's flip-flopping on issues and her treatment of the progressive Senator from Minnesota?
Just let the people get to know them all a bit, before you start advocating for one over the other when the race hasn't even started.
7
Michelle Goldberg sexism is a two way street and you play both sides as it suits you.
6
This column is identity politics writ large. And the racist and sexist comments it has predictably engendered are predictably sad.
7
A rarely mentioned reason why Hillary Clinton lost was that "progressives" split their votes between Clinton, Sanders (write-ins) and Jill Stein. They did something similar in 2000 when they split their votes between Al Gore and Ralph Nader. Because of this lack of focus, progessives have self-destructively given us two Republican presidents and four conservative Supreme Court justices.
This happened because the most radical progressives like to make statements rather than win elections.
My concern at this time is the upcoming Democratic primaries, which will have an over-abundance of candidates. Because of this the party needs to institute ranked voting to assure than the winning candidate is supported by something resembling a majority, rather than a mere plurality.
Like a true "progressive" (a term used to distinguish themselves from mere liberals such as myself), Ms. Goldberg plays identity politics. Why does it matter if the candidate is male or female so long as s/he is qualified, has leadership experience, and reflects the fundamental values of the left which have been almost lost due to identity divisions.
4
@Faye
The election results happened because establishment "Democrats" would rather compete with Republicans to service wealthy donors than win elections. If you don't learn the lesson that putting up another corrupt candidate is not a winning strategy then you will lose again, and all of us will suffer for your selfishness, as we did last time.
2
@Faye Blaming Stein voters for Clinton's loss is factually untrue. If Clinton had spent more time campaigning in the Midwest-specifically Michigan and Wisconsin she might have won.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/12/26/no-jill-stein-did-not-cost-hillary-clint
The corporate Democrats despise their left base while the Republicans pander to and/or fear theirs. That is why there is a Republican in the White House.
2
For president this time I want a level-headed, highly competent and experienced person who knows something about Congress, takes governing seriously, is not a show horse, and doesn't speak in empty platitudes. That would be Amy Klobachar.
4
I have always said that if women were to make up in positions of power numbers in direct relation to their proportion of the population, that our world would be a more peaceful and just place.
Having said that, I want ANY candidate (man or woman) to be a true Progressive (not another corporate shrill), and to be as fearless as possible in promoting said policies for the most amount of people NOW - and not incrementally down the road.
That includes peace, Single Payer health care, a living wage (not just a minimum), a true Progressive tax system and protection of the environment, our human rights and freedoms. (among other things)
If you are fearless for the above, then you have me vote.
2
@FunkyIrishman How much peace has Aung San Suu Kyi brought to the Royingha?
If Ayelet Shaked were in charge would she be nicer to the Palestinians?
If Marine LePen or Marechal Le-Pen were running things would non-white French feel safer?
Laura Loomer refused to use cab/Uber provided by people she thought were Muslims. What do you think her stance on anti-discrimination laws might be if she had the power to change such laws?
Women are no less but certainly no more moral then men.
1
The Democratic party is going to lose the 2020 election if it makes the same mistake it made in 2016 which was, they didn't get on the ground and talk to the voters in MI, WI, OH, Penn (an other states) and listen to what they were saying. The only person who did that was Michael Moore who contacted the Dem party many times to tell them what the voters in MI were saying. They simply didn't listen. They picked Clinton and that was it.
2020 has the same electoral college landscape. Dems have to win MI, WI, OH or some combination of states that will give them the 42 electoral votes they lost by in 2016.
If the Dem party chooses a candidate based on gender, and it is out of line with what the voters in MI, WI, OH want, they will lose.
When a person writes an opinion piece on who should run, and mentions one poll, it's not enough factual information to make a reasoned choice. I challenge Michelle Goldberg to actually go to MI and talk to the voters to find out what they think, then write the opinion piece. I have actually talked to Trump voters and I have found they are not stereotyped as they are depicted in the press. They are complicated people and they voted for Trump for many different reasons. They did not all vote for him because they hated women, for example.
I saw this type of mistake made repeatedly in business, where a decision was made at the top without any input from the people it would affect and these types of decisions are most often disasters.
6
There are many examples in our country of corporations on the verge of failing that finally take the brave step of installing a female CEO. If the woman is unable to turn the company around, then, at a minimum, she will serve as a handy scapegoat when the impossibility of the task at hand is revealed. Perhaps men are now ready to elect a woman as president who, if she is unable to save the country, will at least reinforce their theories of female inferiority. It's not an ideal way to get our first female president, but I'll take it. "May the best woman win."
The disdain on the left for Tulsi Gabbard is going to come back to haunt them. She may well be the only Democrat as yet announced who could beat Trump in 2020 by stealing some of his own support.
3
I am disappointed in whomever at the NYT is ‘’picking’ the comments that demonstrate cluelessness regarding misogyny and women being kept out of power.
Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the like have been brainwashing Americans for over 20 years to denigrate women, esp. women who stand up for equal rights (and also various minorities).
The NYT does not need to help that effort by ‘picking’ comments that reflect similar misogynistic attitudes. People who can’t fathom or recognize the discrimination that continues in their country. People who do not recognize the deliberate actions of Republicans working against women - in government and in business. People who do not see that the right woman could make significant improvements in how women are perceived in positions of power and authority (for those who are open to that change).
I am hopeful that enough people see how horrible Trump is - that a woman president will be the recognized as the necessary antidote. Having mainstream media sources that do not champion sexist attitudes would help.
I appreciated Michelle Goldberg's piece.
1
@Margaret
Actually, Margaret, most commenters read the headline, respond with a post that reflects their own biases and priorities, and absolutely ignore the solid social science (the findings discussed in this piece are consistent with a very large corpus of research on sexist thoughts, feelings, and behaviors) that undergirds the writer's (in this case,Michelle's) thesis.
A distressingly high proportion of my social psychology students have behaved similarly over the last quarter of a century. And you know what, their responses would get selected by the NYT and recommended by 100s of readers as well. Empiricism gets no respect!
And Go Hoosiers. My spouse is a proud IU graduate.
2
It may be hard for you to believe, but people I know don't vote based on the color of the candidates skin (or hair), their sex (male or female), their age (within reasonable limits, such as overall health) - we actually vote based upon the candidate's vision for the country/state/county/city, their qualifications for office, and based upon their ability to perform the tasks of office. So very often the excuses of sexism and racism and any-ism are just that: excuses. There will always be winners and losers in elections, it is a miserable time for us to now have winner - sore losers that still cannot get over the loss. Maybe the secret you seek is simpler than you can fathom - put up candidates that are capable, have a vision beyond I am woman and dump Trump, and that actually want to win American votes, not the niche votes that Dems seem to always chase. And one more thing that people I know - we vote for candidates that are NOT Dems or Republicans first, candidates that are Americans first and foremost. The current "oppose anything from Trump" (even though you supported it before, even voted for it) is disgusting. Really, you are okay with crashing the economy to hurt Trump? To stop border security and stop the flow of illegal of drugs and people to make Trump look bad? The current position of so many Dems on these issues will not help win over votes, certainly from people I know.
2
The undercurrent here, and in many of the comments, is the same sad reasoning used by so many prosecutors who refuse to bring rape cases to trial. " The case has merit, but we can't win. The public isn't ready yet. We have to wait."
Hey folks! Remember 2008? I didn't think I would live to see a black president, yet Obama won 2 terms. I would argue that it was vital America have a president of color, that his race, and these women's gender, does matter. It propounds the principle that everyone has on equal shot in this country, that we no longer have to wait for equality. What we do need is an intelligent, charismatic leader who is not carrying the dead weight of past poor decisions. I haven't seen her yet.
69
@ML, Yes, go for Ms. Harris!
1
Let's stop citing charisma as one of the most important criteria for a candidate. Integrity, competence, experience. Those matter. Charisma is an illusion that deserves to be questioned.
24
@ML Have you considered the possibility that America may have regressed since Obama got elected?
Many articles have been written about the influence of Fox News, Social Media bubbles, identity politics, ...
7
A woman leader of a major modern democracy is nothing new in the world...except for America. Britain, Germany, India, Canada, Norway, Poland, Taiwan, and on and on, have all elected women to lead their countries, some dating back many decades.
What makes America different?
The obvious answer is our culture. American men, and for far too long too many American women, have perpetuated a machismo American culture rooted in our lionized wild-west bravado, bootstrap boy-to-riches fantasy and Christian patriarchal hierarchy.
Real American men must earn more than the women in their lives.
Real American men have guns, lots of them, bigger, more powerful, more deadly than guns others have.
Real American men drive monster trucks or fast cars with more horsepower than a locomotive.
Real American men write their own rules of the road, don't allow anyone to merge in front of them, tailgate anyone in front of them, don't stop to make turns, barely stop for red lights, and dare pedestrians and cyclists to be on the road.
Real American men know that Christian doctrine places man at the head of everything from the church to the home. Thus, they make the decisions, rule their families and leave the care taking and house cleaning to women.
Real American men, by virtue of their sex, are smarter than women. Like Trump, they think with their gut which usually continues to grow with their age.
Is it any wonder real American men are threatened by and hate women who seek leadership roles?
2
@JABarry: "Real American men must earn more than the women in their lives."
And real American women won't date them unless they do. It takes two to tango. In places where that attitude persists, the women enforce it as much as the men.
So Trump made sexism ok, did he? Michelle, there's so much wrong with that logic I don't know where to start.
2
Reminding men about women's increasing earning power before asking about the match between Trump and Clinton really was instructive. It reminded them about shifting gender roles.
Gender roles exist in many contexts, including at work, at home, in casual gatherings, and in the selection of dating partners and mates.
In the experience of a large percentage of American men, many women won't date a man unless he out earns them. It makes sense that men in this situation would have an emotional response to the input about earnings parity. It was designed to evoke this response and it succeeded.
Whether it would change their actual vote once the emotional buzz wears off is another question altogether.
Dating and selection rituals and parameters play a key part in gender roles across the board. If you leave them out of the discussion, you might end up scratching your head and wondering why things are the way they are, and why they are not changing in the way you would like them to.
I perceive editorial bias against Rep. Tulsi Gabbard in your description of her as "chameleon-like" and "onetime darling of the Sanders left" without links to substantiate your opinion. And the link you did provide -- "she now says Democrats need to compromise more with Trump" -- is misleading. If you read the article from Politico referred to, all she was calling for was a dialogue between the two parties.
5
I thought I voted for Hillary Clinton because she was the best qualified candidate. I never knew I was actually actually voting against the “patriarchy.” Insert eye roll here.
8
Just right out of the starting gate, these three women carry damaging baggage. Trump voters revel in her Native American claims and this mania has spread to the unconvinced, Gillibrand be branded for alienating a superior intellect (Franken), and Harris, if not already, will be branded hypocritical in her approach to judicial reform. Dear Michelle, these three women are not anywhere near what we need in a President. If AOC nominates Sanders as her VP, then I'd say, yeah, this is what we need.
1
@willw -first reference is to Warren.
@willw. You mean the AOC who thinks the three branches of government are the president, House, and Senate? The woman is a complete fool. She certainly doesn’t understand the tax rate - maybe she doesn’t pay any.
1
Divisive headlines like this will get us 4 more years of Trump. Just because Hillary lost doesn't point towards broad swaths of misogyny. I'd have been more apt to vote for her if she'd shown the strength we know she has by the leaving Philandering Bill and struck out on her own. Coupling that with the baggage needed to carry her deleted emails that blurred the lines between SoS and the Clinton Foundation gives us a clearer picture as to why she lost to Trump. I'll gladly vote for a woman if I feel she'll represent everyone's best interests, not just because we're being screamed at to do so.
2
So, if I understand your point, men (and women) who voted for Trump did so because along with other factors they were sexists. Therefore, women should embrace a sexist posture and vote for a woman regardless if they are the best candidate. Of course, if the candidate were a Jewish male, you’d have a real conundrum. Should Jewish people vote exclusively for Jewish candidates because anti-semitism exists? Over women. Lord help us if Sam Davis Jr were the candidate.
I wonder if voting for the most qualified person may be a better strategy
3
Let us not forget a women did win more votes in 2016. Please blame the antiquated Electoral College more than sexism and fragile masculinity.
244
@Kate: Point of information: The electoral college is not the problem, the apportionment of electors based on the numbers of representative and senators per state is. The electoral college simply approved the election based on the existing apportionment, just like it always does.
2
@Kate Agreed. The Electoral College in our current United States amplifies the sexism. The red state conservatism has a resistant patriarchal base that creates difficulties for all others who would aspire for representation and who challenge the white male leadership role. A woman can win, but just as Obama's election did not represent the end of racism, a woman's election will not represent the end of sexism.
9
@Ancienthoosier: Last I heard, Californians were Americans too. And if you think a significant number of illegals voted in California, you're fantasizing.
Clinton did win the popular vote. Trump is in because of the preference given to small states in the Constitution.
14
Harris accepts corporate money, has done nothing in her extremely brief tenure in federal office, and seemingly has no firm policy preferences. The fact that the corporate media loves her should tell you everything you need to know.
Worst off, don’t forget: #HarrisIsACop
3
A talk by Dan Cassino in April, 2017, explained the 2016 election to my satisfaction for the first time. It is online at https://vimeo.com/217535142. His talk starts about 25 minutes into the video and lasts for about 25 minutes. (I commend the first 25 minutes to your attention, too.) His is titled "Inequality and Zero-Sum Views of Society."
Ms. Goldberg:
How about the best person win, regardless of gender?
7
You state that sexism played a role in the 2016 election. I agree. I have no doubt that many Hilary votes cast their vote for her solely because she was a woman. Not because of her ideas or experience, but simply because she was a woman.
That IS sexism, right?
5
Yes. I believe Democrats actually must have a woman candidate!
With a woman, they can rally for PIVOTAL change in democracy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats need to rally for dynamic change for years to come.
After all, the Statue of Liberty is a woman!
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"
I think a woman president would add vigilance.
---------------------------------------------------------
1
If the same white women voters, who choose to support a misogynistic male with a history of sexual assault documented on tape, have not changed why should we believe a woman can win? We will see polling results that hopefully show them have come to their senses, but the jury is still out on whether a women can win the presidency. If these women could not see through the negative propaganda and support an overqualified Hillary Clinton, why are they going to vote for Elizabeth Warren, Harris or Gillibrand?
2
Sexists voted for Trump, but they did not elect him. Hard-edged, Political Feminism did. "Bernie-or-bust" neo socialists did. "Beyond Bernie" progressives did. Reverse-racist voters who didn't bother to vote did.
And, more than 40% of women did.
Opinion columnists who make their careers slotting all external phenomena into ideological talking points may not have voted for the "mother," but they elected him.
And, it already looks like he will have a good chance to be reelected thanks to the same calculus.
4
"But sexism pretty clearly played a role"
Sexism probably the most significant of the various factors that led to Mrs. Clinton's defeat. That is reality.
Personally, I am indifferent with regard to whether a woman is elected USA president any time soon. Good that it should occur , as it is good that Mr. Obama was elected. It shows that enough voters can be relied upon to vote for someone who differs from the precedents 100%.
With regard to policies, I do not see a woman as president making any difference to anything. A woman president is still constrained by the institutional setting, including the interests of the political party whence the candidate comes. Mrs. Clinton offered the same gung-ho neo-conservative, kill-everybody, foreign policy, same antagonism towards betes noires, Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and obeisance to the disgusting regimes in Israel and Saudi Arabia. And on and on.
Of course, the USA and the world populations are now living through the horror of Mr. Trump and his disgusting coterie of criminals and sleazy family members, in power.
1
I thought Hillary Clinton was great - I've thought so for years - and of course the best candidate didn't win. The fact that she was a woman, however, was entirely irrelevant to me. It was so obvious that she was best that she could have been a frog and I'd still have voted for her against Trump. However, 53% of White American women did NOT agree with me, and voted for Trump instead of her. Now the fact is that I don't care about the sex of the candidates. I DO think that women have a certain sensitivity that would be a plus in a job where compassion for those in need is certainly not a bad quality but a man can also possess this strength, of course and I wouldn't want to be called "sexist" by suggesting that women are more sensitive than men (although I generally believe this to be true). But just as it's considered "sexist" by the PC police to attribute a quality like "sensitive" to women, so too is it sexist to attribute ANY strength to a woman, suggesting that men don't or can't perform equally well. SEXISM IS A TWO-WAY STREET. I want the best to win, be it a man or woman, Black or White, Gay or Straight, I don't care. Why is it OK for women to call out a candidate simply for their gender but those same women revolt when others attribute particular traits to one gender over another, ladies and gentlemen?
2
I cannot believe ANYONE is thinking about Trump running for office again. STOP IT. The man is completely compromised.
The man is incompetent even to stand indicted or brought to trial.
3
Ms. Goldberg,
If and when a male frontrunner emerges, you could always torpedo his political career in your column.
It worked in 2017.
7
Why not run the best candidate as opposed to the best woman candidate.
The presidency should be a meritocracy not a feminist cause.
7
The big problem will be that many women will still vote for a guy like Trump because he is a man, despite his embodying many of men's worst qualities. We see the same phenomenom when wives fail to give evidence against husbands who physically mistreat them. Younger women may possibly behave differently, but I doubt it.
@Bill George. And of course, you have no idea whether that is true.
When is the goal to be to vote for the best candidate regardless of gender?
4
This white male could easily vote for a woman for president regardless of race as long as she was the best candidate the party can put forth. Unfortunately, Hillary was the best candidate in the 2016 election but had been beaten up by the GOP hate machine for many years that even many women turned on her and voted Trump. I wonder how many women would gladly take back that decision today?
1
Among the greatest demographic waves that will affect the next election, gender will likely fall far below age. We are now entering the world of the aging baby-boomer. Think of AARP on steroids.
This is both a plus and minus to Democrats. A great deal will ride on how the stock markets are doing come 2020. If the markets remain turbulent and below anticipated levels, baby-boomers will feel the pain most directly in the form of lower retirement investment accounts. But if the markets are soaring, we all know how they will vote.
Health care will also be a major issue for this tremendous voting block. Which candidate will best provide a real-world solution vs. a pie-in-the-sky solution that too few will see as attainable. Heath care is personal at its most fundamental level meaning that I worry more about "my" health care than about "all of our" health care.
Among this critical voting block, gender sits lower on the list of who and why. But I can offer a positive criticism of what will help ensure a Democratic Presidency, which is clearly needed because McConnell is incapable of leadership, and this is a strong ticket.
Yes, there are strong and capable women and men entering the race. But I believe that the success of all will be based on who decides to dance with the other. And for this "transition" election, one that moves our nation 180 degrees into the right direction, I suggest one of these fabulous women teaming up as a VP with Biden. After all, it's all about a win.
2
A dangerous philosophy - in politics, winning counts.
3
@Joe Gardner - Well, first of all, although I didn't vote for Trump, my guess is that many females who did vote for Trump didn't feel an obligation to vote for a candidate because of her sex. Nor should they have.
I believe in empowering humans. Full stop. And just for what it's worth, I'm a female, I grew up in a lower middle class family that verged on poverty off and on, and I'm now in my 50s and barely scraping by while I work to build my own business. And you know what? Not one single time in my life have I felt "disempowered" because of being female. The ruling narrative is not everybody's narrative.
1
It is true that sexism played a role in donald trump's victory over Mrs Clinton. However, that sexism is not going away, and trumpism will long outlive trump. What happens to all that rage in America if trump is removed by impeachment or defeated by a woman in 2020? Beware of the backlash. And consider what would have happened had Mitt Romney defeated Barack Obama in 2012:
1. The Affordable Care Act would probably still have passed (a bi-partisan effort in this alternative reality, but based on the healthcare reforms that Mr Romney pushed through as Governor of Massachusetts)
2. Russia wouldn't be meddling in American elections, and in fact, Putin would be in a very weak position today. Recall that Mr Romney recognised Russia as the global threat that it was and still is (and mocked for it)
3. America (and the world) wouldn't be in such a mess. NATO would not be under an existential threat, and the Brexit referendum would probably not have happened, or may have gone the other way.
4. trump would still be doing what he had done for most of his life: making shady real estate deals, cavorting with gangsters, and going bankrupt.
Mitt Romney is a conservative, rich white guy.. Mr Obama is far more aligned with my values (even though I'm a white guy). But would the world really be such a mess if the Romney had won?
Would it really be so bad if a sane, centrist, charismatic white guy wins in 2020?
Yes, yes, I know what you're thinking. But again: beware of the backlash.
1
No one should be elected because of their gender or race! The best person for the job should elected and the JOB is not winning twitter or being a celebrity. The job is running the government for the benefit of the people not being a celebrity.
3
Might be contrary to the idea of this article, but -- fear the Joe. Far too many people will not accept a woman as President, including probably most women! Certainly, Evangelical's won't. Do not destroy yourselves, as you did in '16.
1
Author mentions studies indicating that much support for Trump was driven by male resentment.
I wonder if any studies have been done to see if much support for Hillary was driven by female resentment of men.
2
Its not clear to me why, but the New York Times has now written a series of op-eds pitting men against women (see fire your male broker) . Women GOOD. Men BAD is the theme of all these op-eds. It's almost as if the Times is trying to exploit the current environment to split men off from the progressive wing and drive them to Trump in 2020. Let's be very clear - 53% of WHITE women voted for Trump in 2016 despite everything we knew about him. It wasn't men that made Trump president, it was majorities of WHITE men AND WHITE women. Men AND women of color voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. This is not gender divide its a racial divide.
Vote for best candidate in the primaries and then overwhelmingly vote for the winning candidate in 2020, man or women.
2
The President is seen as the great protector of our national security. Even though Trump was called unfit to serve in that role by 150 former National Security Advisers the American voters still saw him as being "stronger" than a woman. And it was women who voted for the "strong man."
We Americans need to change our understanding of what it means to be strong. Vulgar blustering isn't a sign of strength it is a sign of weakness. We need to go back to Teddy Roosevelt's definition of strength, "walk softly and carry a big stick." We already have the big stick, our military, now we need someone who can walk softly and wield the big stick more effectively than the men who have held that office for the past 70 years.
The allusion to the "glass cliff" is on the mark. Trump has done such a miserable job as president, repeatedly demonstrating that he is way out of his depth, while also behaving like a parody of a Neolithic machismo man. Many of our citizens are bound to be thinking "if this is what a man can do as president it's time to give a woman a chance." As to the possibility of an increased backlash among men to assertive women, well there are more women than men voters out there.
1
Come on -- SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE -- by a lot.
Women can easily win.
And she was a toxic candidate....again, repeat:
"Listen, 45 is terrible, he's going to help the corporations, he's going to worsen inequality, he's a womanizer."
---Oh sure, I gave speeches to Wall Street and wouldn't tell what was in them. Oh sure, my husband was a notorious womanizer. Oh sure, him and me as Senator as Secretary of State sat and monitored the inequality and helped craft laws that let the banks borrow so much in the first place. But ELECT ME!
And even in that level of toxicity as a candidate, she won the popular vote and she was 45,000 votes from 3-crucial states from winning the whole enchilada.
Stop using flawed data and conjecture to explain it.
HRC for all her flaws showed that Americans en masse preferred the woman. If she could do that, anyone who's a bit more authentic, a bit less prone to hide things, well, they could go very very far.
4
So let's say the GOP runs Nikki Haley. Then how will you dial back all the gender support? Be careful what you wish for (remember Sarah Palin?) A candidate's platform is a lot more important than their gender.
4
I'd vote for most any woman (but perhaps not Ann Coulter) before I'd vote for any Republican. And, contrary to many other comments, I think it matters. We need to break the glass ceiling in the White House and now is the time.
One objection, Michelle: "The chameleon-like Representative Tulsi Gabbard," is an unnecessary call-out. Yes, she waffles, but you can't single her out. If Gabbard is a chameleon, Gillibrand is a cheap mood ring. Her positions change more vividly than the illustrations in the Kama Sutra. And Harris herself will have to explain her shifting notions of justice.
But, objection aside, I'm with "her," whoever she is.
4
The almost unrepentant attitude that Hillary was not acceptable skirted the issue that she is a woman more successfully than most other transvestite, i.e.: men and women disguising themselves as feminists when they had no affinity with feminism.
Hardly anyone dared stoop to disclosing that DJT was unacceptable because he portrays himself as a man, mostly, I suppose, because there were only men being considered as
'Publican candidates. Didn't the rest of the pretenders, including those wearing skirts, also propose largely male-only attitudes and directions in their smiley faced candidacies?
It's just going to be a little harder for pundits to find some non-sexist reason not to respect a Democratic or Green or Other Candidate because she is a woman, or because he is a feminist. The focus may start out or end up being about the most competent woman candidate but the favorite may likely be a man regardless of what other reason is posited to prefer him.
I have never felt more sympathetic to Michael Dukakis than I do now. Have we changed?
There was actually a young Black man who admitted on camera that Hillary was unacceptable, as would be any other woman, as candidate for president because she is a woman. Well, well!
If we had been willing to see this loser who was elected in 2016 as unacceptable because he identifies as a man we would have had a whole 'nother agenda of problems today. None of which would have been as inhumane as face us now.
1
This all makes sense, but . . .
Lately it seems that Ann Coulter is determining U.S. immigration policy. Why would these misogynists cower before a woman?
I think that there may be a great deal more here than seems evident. If Trump is to be defeated, and if what remains of the Newt Gingrich coalition is to be made to understand that they do not speak for all of the United States, we have to dig deeper.
2
The Democrats should have learned in 2016 that middle America, men and women, are not ready for a female president.
In 1960, the Democrats ran a Senator from Massachusetts and a Senator from Texas. The country was represented in that ticket!
Wake up Democrats.
Unless the Democrats think that in the next 18 months they can change Southern and Western attitudes and beliefs, they better take a page from the 1960 playbook!
1
@Richard Winkler - Please know that there are some females out there, myself included, that still respect the opinions of white males. I happen to be a GenXer and it breaks my heart to hear so many of my male acquiantances qualify or dismiss their own opinions because they happen to be white males.
I hate what's happening to this country. We truly have no idea what equality means any more - we can't conceive of a situation where we respect EVERYONE and repress no one.
3
@Kristin
Wow! I was going to reply to @Beaglelover to tell that person to inquire whether he or she was prepared to vote for a woman for President. And your explanation of fairness and equality includes more than anything I could have said.
Bravo or Brava!! BTW the country is a lot different than it was in 1960 and besides not having John Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson, we aren't better off. That was definitely more than a generation ago. MAYBE THE GEN Xers will accomplish what needs to be done.
Maybe we should have a maximum age for government service rather than a minimum age.
1
Anyone would almost be better to run than the Clinton fiasco. Hope Kamala gets her emails legitimately. But grandstanding at the Kavanaugh hearings, trying to skewer an innocent man, was a turn off. Mr Biden, Im all in when you declare.
2
Trump, if he is on the 2020 Presidential ticket. Is just take the same approach he did before, lie to his supporters and the rest of the public. The difference this time is that he will a record to defend. His moronic level of criminality and incompetence will be tough to defend even with his facility for lying.
His Democratic challenger will still need to be tough and eloquent. They will need to harken back to successful Democratic programs like FDRs new deal. The only woman who fits that bill is Elizabeth Warren. She has stood up to Trump and her creation of the Consumer financial protection bureau is an example of her championing for regular people. Warren 2020!
2
Let the best person win how about that? Let the person who we the voters think can beat 45 win. The pundit class has gotten us into thinking we have to have perfect engineered candidate. The Right Race,The Right Sex and The Right Age. In 2016 we were told to be worried Bernie because of his age and nobody remember seeing him at civil rights events in the 60's. We need to field a Champion who can rescue us from the kind of America Trump has exposed us to be. Trump could not have succeeded with his misogyny and racism if not for willing followers. The Russians could not have influenced our 2016 election if there were not Americans yearning to be influenced.I pray we stop looking for the right race the right gender and the right age. I hope we can find the right person to stand toe to toe with the tyrant now pushing us over the cliff. In 2016 we thought star power was going to be enough to win and we got Trump. Finally for me any candidate who has to kick off their campaign with a Listening Tour is persona Non Grata. If you haven't been living in a bubble you should have been listening your entire life. People want real people not some poll tested robot programmed to be Politically Correct 24/7.
As a 63-year-old white man and lifelong Democrat who takes a backseat to no one in his distaste for Donald Trump, I’m interested in one thing and one thing alone in 2020: getting rid of Agent Orange.
If any women demonstrates a credible chance of winning I’ll gladly pull the lever for her. If not, I’m afraid my feminist instincts give way to my need to wake up in the morning *not* wondering what travesty of naked self-dealing our commander-in-chief has foisted upon us today.
1
"Plenty of women understood intuitively that a misogynist backlash helped Trump win his Electoral College victory."
Really ? What about the millions of women who voted for Trump ?
2
Since the Bill Clinton race for President women have outvoted men and started a trend which has steadily increased to vote Democratic.
So it makes perfect sense to nominate a woman that does not carry the baggage that HRC did.
I am sorry but it was far more than sexism, campaign mistakes , the Russians, Comey and the Electoral College that allowed Trump to be President.
HRC lost to the most vulnerable Republican candidate in modern times. Her mistakes selling accessibility to Wall Street knowing she was going to run was a fatal flaw, carrying the burden of an accused sexual predator husband negated any attack on Trump, and a completely unforced error of a secret e-mail server that was used for government business was icing on the cake for Trump.
Amy Klobucher would be a perfect candidate if she chooses the burden of running.
1
Kamala Harris and the American electorate are poised, set and ready to have her sail to the Presidency in a landslide. The only serious contestant in sight, AOC, is too young to jump the antiquated presidential age barrier, which is a shame.
But the kleptocracy will easily stifle and out-obstruct her and her Dem Congress power into complete stagnation. They got the Senate, they stole the Scotus, they already have all the tax cuts and deregulation they need, they will adroitly abuse the extortion freedom that the recurring scrimmage over raising the debt ceiling gives them to enforce the dismantling of the social security and healthcare and other spending cuts, God knows how they will further abuse their Scotus domination with full malign intent beyond CU.
The kleptocracy is already inside the voting machines. Exit polls have proven time and again that it strikes and delivers chirurgically exact the changed outcomes they most urgently need. As long as this and other msm ignore that, real change is preempted.
Democracy is gone since 2000.
The only effective counter power that's left for the trolled (majority of the) people is a mass strike, carried out with the irresistable resolve and the rugged determination to die for positive change.
There's no other way anymore out of the kleptocratic coup collapsing the planet's climate and eco-system with its relentless 0.1% private profit greed, under the direction of the USA.
To get this strike going, you women will need the men.
Maybe if we stop making women the issue rather than the best candidate, a really good person who happens to be a woman will win.
2
I thought Hillary Clinton was great - I've thought so for years - and of course the best candidate didn't win. The fact that she was a woman, however, was entirely irrelevant to me. It was so obvious that she was best that she could have been a frog and I'd still have voted for her against Trump. However, 53% of White American women did NOT agree with me, and voted for Trump instead of her. Now the fact is that I don't care about the sex of the candidates. I DO think that women have a certain sensitivity that would be a plus in a job where compassion for those in need is certainly not a bad quality but a man can also possess this strength, of course and I wouldn't want to be called "sexist" by suggesting that women are more sensitive than men (although I generally believe this to be true). But just as it's considered "sexist" by the PC police to attribute a quality like "sensitive" to women, so too is it sexist to attribute ANY strength to a woman, suggesting that men don't or can't perform equally well. SEXISM IS A TWO-WAY STREET. I want the best to win, be it a man or woman, Black or White, Gay or Straight, I don't care. Why is it OK for women to call out a candidate simply for their gender but those same women revolt when others attribute particular traits to one gender over another, ladies and gentlemen?
The local news reported Harris's entry as "good news for women," as she adds to the number vying for the nomination. My wife quipped, "Can you imagine if they had announced Barack's nomination as "good news for Blacks"? (She's Black.) We've had female senators in California for so long that the fact that they are women doesn't much matter anymore. That's what gender equality looks like: Someone runs, and the fact that she is a woman doesn't matter. The US as a nation is so far away from that as to be approximately medieval.
1
Since the post-WWII period, the world has witnessed a succession of exceptional democratically elected female leaders, including the heroic Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, and Benazir Bhutto.
We might expect this political development in Western Europe—Angela Merkel (Germany), Theresa May (United Kingdom)—and Nordic socialist democracies: Helle Thorning-Schmidt (Denmark), Erna Solberg (Norway), Katrin Jakobsdottir (Iceland), Tarja Halonen (Finland). But this historical trend is evident throughout the world, even in socioeconomically less developed nations.
To wit: Park Geun-Hye (South Korea), Aung San Suu Kyi (Myanmar), Tsai Ing-Wen (Taiwan), Halima Yacob (Singapore), Yingluck Shinawatra (Thailand), Corazon Aquino, Gloria Arroyo (Philippines), Julia Gillard (Australia), Helen Clark, Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand), Isabel Peron, Cristina Kirchner (Argentina), Portia Simpson-Miller (Jamaica). And there are many, many others.
Why is it that America, the image of modernity, where gender is discussed incessantly in universities and the media, has never had a female President?
Other nations just get on with it. The gender of the nation’s leaders does not seem to be a significant part of the political landscape.
2
Silly me - I want the *person* who is best qualified to win. If the person is a woman, then she should win; If the person is a man, then he should win (IMO). Call me outdated.
Regarding the "study" - if in a course "Intro to Psychological Research", I were to have conducted a study in as biased and slovenly a manner as this one was described to have been conducted, there is no doubt that the grade would have been Failing.
A similarly biased set up for women, but from the opposite direction could be: "In a vast majority of households men (unjustly) continue to out earn women in most jobs." Followed by: "Do you want a man or a woman to win?".
Honest research?! Not really. Not at all.
The background set up (was not even properly presented in the article, i.e., quoted) was guaranteed, innocently or not, more to create a feeling of inequity than to determine an opinion.
If that is the standard level of "research" done at Fairleigh Dickinson it is no wonder that their nickname is "Fairleigh Ridiculous".
3
No, most conservatives would happily vote for woman, but progressive women are scary because you can't stand up to them or else they will cry "sexism!" Especially if you're a man. So you can't even debate them, let alone ever win an argument against them. Therefore, reserved for those women, the "B" word. A conservative woman however knows this double standard is absurd and doesn't try to capitalize on it as is the illustrated method here for progressive female candidates who will be competing for the "most aggrieved female" position. Liberals refrain, "But we have a right!" And conservatives refrain, "But we have responsibilities."
Sexism DID NOT play any role in the 2016 election. Hillary’s gender was her second greatest asset (behind her name). It was not a liability.
For those that claim she lost due to misogyny answer the following for me:
- Do you believe that people who outright believe that a woman should not be president would ever self-associate with, or vote for, a Democrat?
- Conservative Republicans were in support of Sarah Palin. Would you argue that conservative Republicans are less sexist than moderate Democrats?
Either there is a raft of regionally located sexists on the margins of the Democratic Party (unlikely), or no one decided to vote against Hillary for her sex (especially since we know that crossover voting is virtually non-existent in the current climate). If there are any true sexists who think the President should never be a woman they’re almost certainly Republicans anyway, and beyond reach.
In my experience, spending a lot of time with deeply conservative Republicans, I never ONCE heard anyone make a sexist remark about Hillary, or claim that her sex/gender is why they wouldn’t vote for her. Never even once. If Republicans weren’t holding her sex against her then the proposition that more liberal Americans did is just not convincing.
It is time that Hillary’s followers allow her the dignity of taking responsibility for her own failures.
1
I loved George McGovern as a presidential candidate in 1972. He was a modest war hero and a genuinely smart guy. I had no doubt then or now that he would have been a better president than Nixon. But a more electable candidate, Ed Muskie, had been done in by Nixon’s dirty tricks and we were saddled with a second term of Tricky Dick. My point: dirty tricks have gotten even dirtier since 1972, not least, with the addition of V Putin to the show; expect the most viable Democratic candidate to be subjected to the filthiest Republican/Russian attacks in the run up to 2020. Dems mustn’t put forward an ideal candidate who can’t win a general election.
When JFK ran for President, he distanced himself from the Pope. Obama went light on racism and his racial identity. In 2020, the woman who will have the best chance of winning will be the one who speaks the least of misogyny. America doesn’t want a Catholic President, a Black President or a woman President. It wants a President that speaks for all of us.
2
"Sexism helped elect Trump." No, that's just another excuse for the HRC sycophants. In reality, infinitely more women voted for HRC because of her gender. She certainly had little in the way of skills, knowledge, and abilities. Very high on notions of entitlement though.
3
If Democrats are going to run a campaign founded upon identity politics, they surely won’t get my vote. They probably won’t get it anyway, given their capacity for sanctimonious cheerleading on behalf of illegal migrants ad infinitum.
3
Each and every one of us is flawed in some way.
Some of us are hate filled, some of us, liars. Others merely puff themselves up to be larger, bigger, smarter. Each of us carries the seeds of our own flaws, we change to convince people we are not whom we say we are.
Perhaps we were an aggressive prosecutor, yet now times call for a sympathetic understanding individual. Maybe we were college professors, who attempting to burnish their credentials by making belive they are whom they are not. Maybe they were rough on women as a child but forgot that when they had an oppourtunity to sling the same mud at someone else.
Bring us the correct candidate and we will vote for them, not flawed fakers, not any cory come lately, or someone sending smoke signals as Elizabeth does, or even a former conservative prosecutor who has now found God and become a liberal darling.
So in conclusion, I have no problem with sexism, as long as it has a short black dress.
2
Kamala is an actor. I want a thinker. Warren 2020.
3
Sexism also playing major role amongst male Democrats supporting novice Obama over supposed front running experienced Clinton 2008.
1
Almost every possible candidate would be better than Trump. The question is whether that message gets through the fearful and hateful messages of the right-wing media circus that has hijacked much of America.
Sexism did not torpedo Hillary Clinton in 2016- Hillary Clinton, her advisors and supporters did. It wasn't the Russians or James Comey or sexist white men- she simply ran a tone deaf, lousy campaign and projected an air of entitlement to people who require their vote be earned.
I hope to be able to cast another vote for a woman for President, but the sex of the candidate should not define or determine who gets the nomination. The person nominated in 2020 needs to be electable but is also going to have to be a skilled and effective executive that can undo the massive damage done by the Trumpists during this misadministration of our Federal Government.
The next President cannot leave things as they are inherited from Trump or Pence, they are going to have a lot of cleaning up to do. That is going to require a special set of skills beyond what usually is required.
Identity politics might sell in Manhattan or Manhattan Beach, Ca, but not so much in Manhattan, Kansas. To be honest most of the "old white men" that regularly get blamed for electing Trump are willing to vote for a woman- just not Hillary Clinton.
Democrats need to take note- I may be a Progressive but I do not owe you my vote. Any candidate has to earn my vote regardless of whatever. I will heartily celebrate the election of our first Woman to be President, but will not vote for someone because of their gender. The President has to serve all of the people- not just their supporters.
2
Say it how you want; any way you want: when women are in power, they will be men.
It is absolutely heartbreaking to never encounter any woman willing to stand up against such jingoistic fool's Goldberg.
The United States of America doesn't need a "woman" or a "man."
What the US NEEDS is SOMEONE of genuine moral integrity of HIGH intelligence with a propensity for nuisance.
What the US NEEDS is someone who hasn't thought about being President for a moment!
What the US doesn't need is a "woman" or a "man."
I cannot begin to comprehend the thinking of those that voted for trump over Clinton. It boiled down to voting for an insane person or a sane, rational person. That's what I told friends that didn't like Hillary. It didn't matter if you didn't like her, do you like America?
It may come down to the same choice in 2020, although I pray Mueller comes through and trump resigns to save Ivanka. Insanity is killing democracy.
1
Man. Woman. It ultimately doesn’t matter if he or she can end the ongoing disaster. Never Again Trump. Vote.
This conveniently glosses over the fact that many women also did not vote for Hillary, just because she was a woman...
1
I think that offering up a Harris or Warren as the front of the ticket is a big mistake. The one thing I took away from the 2016 presidential run is that I underestimated just how racist and misogynist the country is. Trump lied about Obama being a "foreigner" and largely got away with it. While there were obvious problems with HRC she was way more qualified to be president than the joke who's sitting in the white house today. More than half of white female voters chose Trump over Clinton. Wrap your head around that one folks. Women don't even like women.
The Brexit crowd and the MAGA people represent some of the same unhappiness with the Neo-Liberal world we live in. Brexiters rightly feel that their national sovereignty has been conceded to a few Euro-bureaucrats sitting in Brussels who have a Germanic, corporatist agenda that promises nothing but penury and joblessness and foreign neighbors for them.
To fully understand how pathetic the Democrats have become, understand that the party and HRC could NOT even fake a populist message in the heartland. I personally wonder why we still can't learn of the promises HRC made to Goldman Sachs in her well paid speeches to them.
If the Dems can't pull a rabbit out of their hat I still think we might see four more years of Trump in the white house. Imagine how awful that might be...
So the us v. them mentality championed by Trump continues. Nice, Michelle. Very nice.
1
so the dem concept is, let's not work to end sexism, let's just use it for our own agenda and say we are fighting Male sexism. no hypocrisy there at all.
2
Who wants to bet that the "progressive" yet sexist side of the democrat party will say once again they want to vote for a woman, just not that woman when/if a woman gets nominated?
If the Democrats nominate a woman, can she beat Nikki Haley to become the first woman President?
1
The only reason to run a woman against Trump is to ensure another 4 years of Trump.
What a bunch of hog-wash! What encouraged men, AND women, to abandon Hillary ‘s campaign was her constant degradation of men, particularly white men! Not surprisingly, there are a whole bunch of women married to white men. Also not surprisingly, if you belittle their spouses, you are likely to lose their votes!
Quit blaming Secretary Clinton’s loss on other’s misogyny! It was her misandrous behavior that cost her the election!
Move on! If you want me to vote for you, whomever you are, do not insult me while asking others for their vote! Be a President to all, NOT to just minority and women voters!
2
so many of the comments are about voting for right candidate with the best qualifications. That indicates something seriously wrong to me. That liberals are basically asking or more like telling everyone to be level or even or nondiscriminatory. On the surface that sounds great and is great. But to a significant portion of the population- and this is well supported science- a level playing field does not exist. And won't exist because of the shared truth that everyone has their favorites. So telling everyone you have the best candidate because he's this or he's not that but he's an even Steven ( even qualifications) is a mute concern. Its and important and necessary concern, but it won't get the job done. Instead of worrying about everyone else who really are going to vote their tribe. Act from the heart. You need to hold yourself accountable. Not everyone else. Liberals ( which I am) are far far to willing to look the other way when corporatism or militarism or deference to power is. For this comment my job was to appeal to liberals - that level of responsibility. I have to be careful to not insist that we be overly concerned about winning- but winning has its place- just like the discounted idea that Bernie was actually a stronger candidate against Trump. In poll after poll.
2
If the Dems choose a woman, she will lose.
People are politically correct when someone is listening, but no one is at the urn...
Don't get me wrong, women's rights, equality, have come a long way... but there is still a lot of road ahead.
1
A woman will not win. Period. End of story.
Democrats have to ask themselves if they want to win, or if they want to play identity politics. The two are mutually exclusive.
Trump won because of one thing: the white, upper Midwest, blue collar male. He won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc because of that. If the democratic party can siphon even a small percentage of those voters, and still retain the one's they appealed to last election (and there's no indication those who voted for Hillary will not vote for the democratic candidate this time, whoever it is), they will win in 2020. If they continue to play identity politics and look for a woman, or minority of some sort, they will lose.
While Ms. Goldberg's sentiments are laudable, and her political desires are nearly identical to mine, the means by which she seeks to achieve these political ends couldn't be more off-base.
3
Unfortunately, Harris and Gillibrand are both exhibiting the pc logic that is so toxic to the left. They are both being clever, and trying to appeal to a base. In the long run, we need to elect a liberal leader with a clearer view of the world.
3
If sexism "helped elect Trump," then sexism will be the main cause of a woman getting elected. And Racism was then the cause of Barak Hussein Obama's election. I for one, a white man, voted for Obama two times, and both times it was because he was black and I thought he wouldn't destroy the country, but mostly because he was black. White liberals still can't stop the racism and sexism that lies at the heart of all Identity politics that MLK notably disliked. Here's an MLK quote that says a lot, “Let us be dissatisfied until that day when nobody will shout ‘White Power!’—when nobody will shout ‘Black Power!’—but everybody will talk about God’s power and human power.” The progressives only think certain identity groups should have power. This is tyranny, and racist and sexist. May the best person win, regardless of sex or skin color.
@PJ ABC
If a woman wins, it may be because she's the best candidate, not because of "sexism." I will vote for the best candidate, regardless of race or gender. I am sick and tired of identity politics in the Democratic Party, and it's time Democrats recognize this is a losing strategy. Voting for someone because of his or her race or gender is just as discriminatory as not voting for someone because of his or her race or gender. Although Barack Obama was clearly a better candidate than McCain, I confess that I voted for him in part because of his race. I do not regret that vote. However, I will never again vote for Republican-lite because of either race or gender. Get us a candidate who will seriously represent the 99 rather than the 1%, rein in the outsized power of Wall Street and the international banking cartel and will not involve us in unconstitutional wars all over the planet. This might also help us address global warning, the un-pc term for "climate change."
1
Republicans had no problem voting for Sarah Palin for Vice President, which put her second in line for the Presidency.
You’re gonna tell me that if a female candidate effectively convinces an unemployed blue-collar white man that she will bring jobs back to his town, and make his healthcare affordable, he will not vote for her because she is a woman?
Paradoxically, I think women candidates need to place women’s rights a few notches down on their platform. Not that they shouldn’t defend themselves against sexist attacks from Trump. But for this election, they should focus like a laser on issues and policies that will benefit ALL Americans --- jobs, healthcare costs, college costs, wages, the environment, infrastructure. And they should focus on restoring trust in our government and our elections, and offer a compelling and positive vision for the country’s future that inspire and unite us. Because I think that getting men to vote for a woman for reasons having nothing to do with her gender, and letting the country experience the reality of a woman in the White House, will do more for women’s rights than anything else I can think of.
1
I'm going to cut to the chase. I don't think this country is ever going to vote for a woman for president.
There I said it. So what??
17
@sharon5101 It already has. More people voter for Clinton than Trump. Trump is President because of our archaic electoral college system. A woman will be elected President and probably in 2020.
50
@sharon5101What Gary said. More than three million of us voted for Clinton over Trump.
38
The popular vote doesn't count because the founders thought that was mob rule. That's why this klutzy electoral college has been with us ever since 1789. Hillary wound up losing because she was a lousy candidate and she ran a lousy campaign.
17
I have to check myself-have to remind myself of the difference between the candidate who could win v the best potential predident. In Ms. Harris’ casr, we have both, and I’m totally behind her.
1
I think both professional and amateur pundits underestimate how much voters treat candidates as individuals rather than a series of categories. There is definitely sexism in our country, but a lot of the sexism (at least among potential Democratic voters) is subconscious. That means there is a way for a woman candidate to successfully engage people who may have some sexist worldviews, just as Obama successfully engaged a lot of voters despite this country's historic racism. But that's something you can't just quantify in terms pundits like to use. At the end, it's the candidate as a complete package that has to appeal to the voters.
1
The Cassino paper is clearly a conclusion in search of a study. I'd encourage people to read it to see how shabby it is scientifically. Peer reviewed, yes, but Contexts is one of those publications in the social sciences that has virtually zero impact (sub 1.0). Even taking the results at face value (which we shouldn't), how do we conclude that the voters switched their choices because of sexism rather than any number of other factors?
Why so sour on Tulsi Gabbard, Michelle? You dismiss her as someone, "Who now says Democrats need to compromise more with Trump." Your link to Politico talks about the her thoughts that Dems need to take less of a hardline stance to get the government open. You might not agree with this, I for one like the brand of hardball Pelosi is playing, but it is not some far-out fringe idea that both sides try to meet in the middle.
Gabbard's progressive bona-fides, along with her military experience, spirituality, and willingness to go "rogue" if need be uniquely place her in a position to both appeal to the left, and siphon off a fair number of votes from the right.
2
Sexism absolutely did not help Trump win. Let's not pretend it did.
Trump won because Russia launched the biggest covert disinformation campaign in the history of the world to influence our elections.
Trump won because television and social media made him a superstar, and people had trouble separating their made up rags-to-riches backstory from reality.
Trump won because he preyed on the fears of the working class, whose jobs are under threat, though not from immigrants.
Trump won because economics is complicated, and he made it simple for people: tariffs would help bring jobs back to America. Unfortunately, the longer-term downstream effects are well-known, and the opposite happens.
Trump won because reasonable conservatives had no other option in the end. They wanted Supreme Court Justices; they couldn't vote third-party or for Hilary.
Trump won because Hilary was a compromised candidate in so many ways. She was the status quo; he represented change. She also made several key campaign mistakes by not hitting important swing states.
Trump won for many reasons, but sexism absolutely was not even in the running for top 10. If we forget that and try to play the gender politics game, we will lose in 2020. Let's keep our eye on the endgame and acknowledge the facts--not some made up story about what happened. That's how we'll lose.
2
In the primary, I plan to vote for whomever most shares my views.
In the general election, I will vote for anyone wih a "D" next
to her/his name.
There are no other reasonable choices.
7
These candidates may be “strong and viable” in the minds of voters in NY, MA and CA, but their qualities as Candidates are largely unknown to the rest of the nation. And Mr. Trump demonstrated that one can win the White House without coastal states.
2
...And with help from Russia
1
True, but the electoral college math still worked in his favor, regardless of how he got there.
"There are many explanations for Clinton’s loss, including ... Russian hacking..."
There's no point in reading any further in this piece than that comment. If Ms Goldberg is relying on that unproven accusation, what other unproven assertions is she relying on?
But, ad rem, "Presented with a hypothetical matchup between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump..." is a thoroughly flawed question. There are just too many differences between the positions of those people, making it just about impossible to identify the reason(s) respondents might choose one over the other. A far more telling question might have been to posit Trump versus Martha McSally. Or Clinton versus Bernie Sanders. At least in those cases, their political positions would be similar and the results would better reflect the significance of misogyny.
(As an aside, McSally would get my vote...)
I don't know if gender has much to do with electability. I think if an individual has a strong sense of self, is comfortable in his/her own skin, is far more relevant.
Although the three women have 3 entirely different personalities with only one running for President (Harris, Cortez, Pelosi), all three are clearly comfortable with themselves. No one feels a necessity to let the public know they drink beer, are for the #Metoo movement, are the "first" female to achieve something of importance or other. It has nothing to do with the times we live in. Ann Richards proved that decades ago. She was a natural!
2
I want more than anything for Trump to go. But as a woman I’m equally frustrated that we will always find one reason or another not to back a female candidate. The male candidate whoever he is, will be accepted even if he’s flawed. Biden? Beto? Castro? Bernie? Booker? All flawed. Because there are NO perfect candidates on this planet. The woman however has to be perfect or she will be dismissed out of hand.
Remember when running an African American necessarily meant that we would lose the election? That was dead wrong. This ‘woman candidate would lose us a couple points’ view is based on 2016 which is old news, and does not account for where women voters themselves are right now. The mid-term election is a better more recent indicator — women drove Democratic successes and any D candidate needs high female enthusiasm and turnout. And women are done with the double standards and with being loyal, taken-for-granted foot soldiers. If there is no woman on the ticket I personally will neither campaign, nor donate and will entirely sit out the election for the first time. Enough is enough.
1
"Trump could be the man to wreck the country so badly that Americans will be willing to let a woman save it."
I would never vote for a woman Presidential candidate. I would also never vote for a man Presidential candidate.
The point here is that gender is not a relevant qualification to be President. I don't care if a candidate is a man, woman, or has purple polka dots all over. All I care about is if the candidate has an appropriate vision for the country's direction, can be an effective Commander In Chief so that our national security is preserved, has the deep gravitas and leadership which are needed to nurture our standing in global geopolitics, is competent in economics and finances so that our economic and financial health are safe, and has the kind of compassion to focus on the needs of the people of our country and not the elite donors. Being a woman, or a man for that matter, has no relevancy in any of that. If a candidate has those qualities and is a woman, fine, I'd vote for her, but not because she was a woman.
Candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand who focus on women's issues as the campaign priority will raise awareness about those issues, which is goodness. But they will lose the campaign because they would be one-dimensional candidates. Amy Klobuchar is much more solidly based in the range of issues that are needed to be qualified for the Presidency.
And, by the way, ignoring a candidate's gender is the truest kind of equality that our country needs.
2
In the Age of Trump, I will forgo my independence of political party and vote for any Democrat emerging from the primaries as the party's standard-bearer.
Hopefully, a candidate will emerge who can ignite the imaginations and hopes of a new electorate regardless of the party's fixations with slice and dice demographics and reliance on dubious soft science predictive analyses.
What we saw in '16 should inform the Democrats' thought processes leading to '20. Two candidates drew huge crowds of overheated supporters to overflow events. Neither was named Clinton and both were aging white males. One was elected president.
My point is certainly not to advise the selection of another aging white male. To the contrary, I hope to see a candidate of any gender, race, religion, age, or sexual orientation become the Democratic nominee. But this time, please, find the person who can ignite a fire in the hearts and minds of the voters. Excitement wins elections, calculations based in previous battles die on the vine.
2
This column projects a woman running against Trump. What if her adversary turns out to be Pence instead? The question then of who gets to "save" the country could be a little more complicated. Think: American religious war?
1
There's a very good reason not to run a woman against him. Sherrod Brown is not a woman. To be clear, I don't mind a woman President. I voted for HRC.
Sherrod Brown is someone special though. A progressive who wins in Ohio.
2
Is this article about a biological female, or gender? Both female and gender are used, but I thought woke people lean towards identification over biology.
1
I remember sitting around a conference table with members of a search committee discussing candidates for a job opening about 20 years ago.
One female member insisted that we already had too many other females in the department, and that we should be focusing our attention on finding some "male leadership."
The committee went silent for a few moments, and then got back to work. The job was eventually offered to an alternate candidate after the original four who interview for the position fizzled out.
That woman - the alternate candidate who didn't even make the first cut - is still on the job doing a remarkable job.
I learned two things from that experience: keep an open mind to all who apply, and leadership is leadership. It doesn't come in a male or female form.
4
If we want "real progress", we have to win the next election. That means selecting the most qualified candidate who can win, not just display how enlightened our party has become.
That means a male candidate, with a female VP candidate, at this time in history. Fair or not, this is what it will take to gain back our power. I'm saying this as a professional women.
The Dems cannot blow this election.
RBG isn't going to live forever.
1
If the Dems want to win, they will nominate the most qualified, eloquent, inspiring and truly unifying person, regardless of that person's gender, race, or age.
We need someone that speaks to all and represents all. This article is a perfect example of the mindset that will get Trump re-elected in 2020.
The best Democratic candidate may be an old white male. It may be a younger black female. But whatever the case, the best candidate, in addition to being experienced and inspiring, will be someone that isn't hung up on focusing on promoting some groups over others, isn't a holding a grudge against the "patriarchy," who understands that their duty as President is to represent and lead EVERYONE, and who communicates this fact in every word they speak.
3
I can't follow the logic. The Cassino study certainly suggests that this IS a reason not to run a woman--that is if your primary goal is to win. The major unknown is whether men will behave similarly in the 2020 election (i.e., in the interim they may have adjusted to the idea of a woman president or been repelled by Trump).
2
Goldberg , like many progressive Democrats,"is hungry for female leadership" because she is an advocate of identity politics.
Identity politics pits one group against another based on race,gender, religion ethnicity and age and is inherently divisive and offensive.
Most Americans are "hungry" for good political leadership regardless of the "identity group" of the leader.
5
@jck I am SO tired of white men using "identity" politics against the rest of us. Its way past time for that to stop. There are so many other better candidates out there.
1
The leader of the free world - the leader most respected and looked up to by democratic societies of the west - has been a (German) woman since November 2016. The leader of the free world will again be an American starting in 2021 if we elect a female.
2
Most political ambition is likely to evoke this "moral outrage", as what in the world would make someone so self-centered as to think that they should lead the free world? What could be more narcissistic? In earlier times candidates did not campaign, lest they be thought of as actively pursuing the office. They preferred to be viewed as reluctantly agreeing to the part's request to put their own lives on hold while they served the country.
I am aware that I find the self-centered pursuit of the presidency as less attractive in a female, but not because I consider them to be inferior. In reality, I consider them, in general, to have more empathy for others, which is why I can't help getting the creeps when one declares themselves in the race for the big prize. It does not stop me from voting for the more qualified and liberal/moderate candidate however. At least I hope not.
1
The main thing is for the Blues to unify behind the nominee, whomever he or she may be. Any of the 3 women senators would be fine. Tulsi seems a bit young.
Biden r Berne or Beto will do.
We have a wealth of candidates. Support whom you wish but there is no need to hate the ret of the field.
@Lefthalfbach, Bloomberg is another possibility. He has the business background to expose trump as a pseudo self made businessman who was repeatedly rescued by his papa Trump each time he went bankrupt.
1
@petey tonei
Bloomberg would be perfectly fine if he gets in.
We have 8 or 10 perfectly sound candidates. What we must avoid is a Centrist/Progressive split.
The obvious answer, btw, is to balance the ticket ideologically, maybe with the VP candidate being toe younger, more Progressive of the two.
Right now, the person who best combines the ideological povs is Sherrod Brown- and he is strong with Labor.
1
It's about time men get over this macho thing of having to be in control and being threatened by women. It is time for them to set an example and start supporting women as they would support men but let's keep in mind that men are competitive with each other, bully each other and find it hard to collaborate with other men in general. In order for this country and world to survive there must be a change in men's attitude toward women and each other. Trump, himself, is a terribly, negative role model for men and women. It is more than time for a women to be president and had Hilary Clinton been smart and taken on Trump like a man would have perhaps she would have been president and we would not be in the mess we are now. On the other hand she was not likable to many because her inability to relate and get off her entitled mindset. Wouldn't it be nice if Trump and Pence were ousted because of their misgivings and Pelosi became president.
1
Interesting article Michelle. I really don’t know how Americans are going to vote this time, nor does anyone else I would suspect. What I do know is that “This Time” it’s going to be different!
I still think it’s going to be approximately 40% Democrats and 40% Republicans, regardless of who runs.
Before Kamala announced yesterday that she is going to run, I already put her at the top of my list for President, and that was before I purchased her book.
What an interesting concept to learn about the early childhood of someone running for office. I love the way she approaches almost everything. She is believable, versus so many other politicians.
In 1967, my ex-partner and I flew with Robert Kennedy when he announced his candidacy for President. We were supposed to fly directly to Binghamton NY to announce, but the weather was so bad, that we had to fly to Syracuse NY and then bus back to Binghamton. Myself and Errol Sober were supposed to sing before Senator Kennedy came out to make his announcement. Because we were delayed for over 2 hours, he only had time to make the announcement and then we immediately headed back on the bus to drive back to Syracuse.
Senator Kennedy, myself and Errol sat in the back of the bus and sang and talked politics. Senator Kennedy was amazing with his well thought out answers to our many questions. I became a believer in a politician for the first time in my life. He was real. I’m starting to get that same feeling from Kamala.
1
Democrats don’t get it. No man or woman from a “coastal” state will win the presidency. (Right...i know trump is from the big apple.)Most Americans loathe the new far left policies they represent and want to jam down our throats. The four female candidates mentioned in this article don’t have a chance, and the only female candidate who might, is klobuchar. She is “color blind,” dignified, intelligent, from the mid-west , and always presents herself in a fair and balanced way as evidenced in the brutal Kavanaugh hearings.
1
Cassino is wrong as the dynamics have shifted, and Hillary was hated by many men, and some women, just for being Hillary and not because she was a woman.
"There are many explanations for Clinton’s loss, including her campaign’s mistakes, Russian hacking and James Comey’s blundering investigation of her email server. But sexism pretty clearly played a role." Add personal rancor to these blunders.
Those seeking the Democratic party nomination are strong women and one or two have military backgrounds which will endear them to the male voters as well.
Trump has issues with women, he hates them. He hates democrats. He hates minorities. He essentially hates mankind and this will defeat him.
1
Gender was an important factor, but it likely depended as much or more on the candidate herself. Hillary Clinton was the kind of Washington insider the DNC has reflexively promoted and anointed. But then so was the Gore-Lieberman ticket.
And there is a clue analogous to DNC selection--those anxious to seek the cameras and microphones. Let's call it the hambone factor. Look at the next rank. There you'll find a very strong field of potential candidates: Amy Klobuchar, Mark Warner, Sherrod Brown.
Ms. Goldberg always manages to beat a good idea to death.
Of course it would be a wonderful, and overdue, event if a woman were to become President. But to do so as an act of counter-sexism is a bad thing. Seems pretty toxic, to use a phrase currently in vogue.
And one suspects that, if Nikki Haley were to be the only female presidential candidate in an election, Ms. Goldberg would find some excuse or other to ignore the approach she advocates in this column and vote against "the woman."
4
@Uysses
As would most of us.
It's true: there's no reason not to run a woman against Trump...as long as she has the best chance to beat him, which is almost the only thing that matters.
If we say "the nominee MUST be a woman," (or must be young, or must be non-white) however, we foolishly limit our pool of possible winners. We also act in just the bigoted ways that we have rightly condemned in others.
We must win. Pick the most likely winner, period.
3
This is the best op ed of Goldberg's that I have read, fact-filled, logical and insightful. But I don't want Trump to create more wreckage, which she posits as a mechanism for a woman being elected president. Let her get elected on her own merits. Just sayin'