Warren came in a distant third here in her home state because - face it - a lot of people just don't like her and her "plans". Same result nationally. Get over it, this isn't about "sexism".
Here's a ticket that would pose real problems for Trump: Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Buttigieg. Two patriotic young veterans who represent a new generation of American leadership for the challenges of the 21st century. Many Republicans like me would support them because of their military credentials. Trump has no nicknames for them there's a clue he would really lose a likability contest to them. Fortunately for Trump the DNC will make sure such a dynamic ticket never emerges to challenge him.
2
This whole process is ridiculous. A caucus produces nothing. I live in a state that hasn't even voted yet. We need to reform this primary process and get the media prognostications out of it too. I never feel counted.
4
In truth, none of the female candidates were qualified to take on and defeat President Trump. He would have chewed up every one of them. Four people of little accomplishment, none short of anger all lacking a sense of humor.
4
Being a woman does not mean by default she is qualified to be President. To me and many others she lacks substance and was a screamer for attention. Saying she had a plan for every issue finished our support. The USA is long overdue for a woman President but none of these Ds were it. Clinton was it.
2
At least this didn't happen in the general election, so they can only blame the primary voters!
2
Half of the population is female, so if women don't want to elect women in political offices, whom are you going to complain to...?
4
Didn't Hillary Clinton get the nod in 2016, with the party "establishment" doing everything possible to marginalize and ignore Bernie Sanders? I have never met her personally, but she always struck me as a woman.
Before that, The Democrats nominated the first black man to run for President from a major party. He won, easily, twice.
So how is it "always" about old white men, all of a sudden? Many (perhaps most) of us would have happily voted for Warren if she became the nominee. But she isn't going to be, so we'll vote for someone else instead.
BTW, any second thoughts from the Warren crowd about how she treated Mayor Bloomberg in their only televised meeting? Pouncing on him like he was a rabid dog or child molester. The man has only spent a half-billion of his own money to unseat Trump, and he may well spend more in the months ahead. Am I the only one who found her vicious, finger-pointing assault to be unworthy of a fellow candidate for high office?
Sometimes people make their own luck. It's not always premeditated misogyny.
4
It's not the gender, it's quite simply the quality of the candidate and the targeting of the candidate's campaign. Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar ran almost laughably amateurish campaigns. Can anyone remember one genuinely unique idea that either of them had. Both were likable, personable and, I think, electable -- except when running against the worst misogynist who's ever occupied the White House. Warren had a plan for "everything" and sounded unerringly like my fourth grade teacher - annoyingly preachy. No, it came down to who resonated with voters. And who is or is not getting help from the Russians. Can a woman win? Hilary could have as could Kamala, Amy and Liz, but they ran bad campaigns.
3
I read that many women supported D.T. over HRC and I wondered why they voted for him knowing exactly what he was. That somehow now they seem to be offended by his actions and the spineless senate that abets him seems a bit misplaced ire.
Why do so many so-called feminist women play victim and wallow in self pity? Steinem and Greer et al never did that - they were legitimately strong. Warren and the other women had their chance but the Democratic voters (are the majority also women?) didn't buy it.
1
She could have focussed her consist her considerable intelligence on educating voters about Trump. Perhaps then she would not have lost the Democrats who became disgusted with her obvious headline seeking. For so many, even in her home state, she reduced herself with her senseless attacks on her fellow Democrats.
Yet Ms. Pelosi--unwittingly or not--joined with Koch in supporting MR. Cuellar, allegedly a Democratic MAN who votes 75% of the time with the GOP.
In the end, apparently it is not values but power and its men who count the most.
Research will emerge that shows institutional and societal sexism in large part undid Warren's campaign. Aside from the "shrills" from voters, there was an editorial impact in the papers I read. Warren could be an irritating presenter, but does your irritation really obviate her message. And Buttigieg's Obama imitation was worse. Klobuchar's voice was no sweeter. Neither was Bernie's or Bloomberg's. She was accused of waffling on M4A but the men routinely accused each other of reversals, often decades' worth, citing video, print, records. By contrast, Warren has a record of real achievement that benefits anyone earning less than millions plus detailed plans nobody bothered to address in depth. She also admitted when she was wrong. Note the DNA test commercials feature people who grew up hearing from their parents they were from one ethnicity, only to find out their roots were elsewhere. [see, Biden, So. Africa]
I am so fortunate that WA state is bluer than blue and the Electoral College shows my vote doesn't matter. Unless there's a huge change in the polls here, or Biden uses what's left of his mind to bring Warren on as a running mate, I'll vote in local races only. Sorry, data miners. Spoilsport? Not if the game is still rigged after 71 years on this rock.
2
When will we recognize that saying "if you don't support my preferred candidate you are a racist/sexist" is a form of bullying?
7
Electing a woman as president will not advance the lives of everyday women one iota. In fact, the first female president may very well turn out to be a Republican. Let us please focus on feminist policy, not symbolism.
1
BREAKING NEWS: Studies establish that many women, as well as men, actually want the person they believe is most qualified to be elected President.
Maybe we need an elected monarchy. We could have whatever category you want as Head Of State, while feeling free to elect the most qualified President.
And yes, we have many different ideas as to what constitutes "qualified." After all, it wasn't that long ago that "best qualified" was not the person with the cleverest TV one-liners, as it seems to be for many Americans across the political spectrum today.
2
Look, Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 so of course we're ready for a woman president. That said it doesn't look like the 2020 election will provide that opportunity. I understand the caution and the calculating. Beating Trump is THE ONLY PRIORITY. Agreed!
The way I see it is that it doesn’t matter whether Biden or Bernie gets the nomination, Warren MUST BE the VP running mate. B&B both NEED a woman on the ticket in order to beat Trump. Biden needs to appeal to more progressives in order to win over Bernie supporters and independents. Bernie needs to appeal to more moderates and independents in order to win over Biden supporters. Warren perfectly complements either candidate. She’s calm, soothing and detailed vs. Bernie’s bellowing catchy one-liners. She quick, smart and factual vs. Joe’s “lovable” gaffes. She’ll mop the floor with Pence (or Trump) in a debate. She would “revolutionize” the role of VP in a really good way that would prove a woman's worth.
2
What is missing is a discussion about the role of the physical appearance of candidates and how that affects perception of relative stature or capability. Rightly or wrongly, (This will sound terribly misogynous to some. It isn't intended to be.), especially coming from a man), seeing mixed attire on candidates (dresses vs. pants) favors male and pants-wearing women candidates. Among the first things one notices, subtly and often unconsciously, among candidates standing side-by-side on stage is bare legs versus covered legs. Like it or not, it is an unconscious first-impression distinction. With more than one candidate in a dress, differences in their legs can be distracting -- again, unconsciously. Pants for all would ensure that viewer focus is not distracted by color or shape of legs (fat or thin? dark or light?) Of all our senses, sight is always the first to comes into play when assessing what is in our field of view. Such distinctions can either hurt or help candidates. As much as we might want to deny it, our eyes are basically the key sensor in judging others; behavior, attractiveness, hair styles, physical differences, threats and more.
We don't have nearly enough women in politics and leadership positions. It's slowly getting better. We just need to work on ensuring that some elements of the competition arena don't detract from their parity with, or superiority to, other candidates,whether across genders or within gender.
I think Warren made too many mistakes. The whole Native American thing, the M4A thing, instant ban on fracking (probably a good thing unless you live in an area dependent on extraction), the wasted attack on Bloomberg but leaving Sanders largely alone.
If you look at where people are on a wide range of issues (Pew research polls for example), Warren took positions well to the left of where most people are.
In an election year where nothing matters but beating Trump (and just maybe saving the country, world, humanity) ,pushing a whole new agenda was probably the biggest mistake.
Sanders is also realizing that about now I suspect.
For what it's worth, Klobuchar got my vote.
3
To answer the question in the headline, Biden was always the default. I think the sheer number of candidates and the way the process unfolded including billionaire Steyer being able to stay in notwithstanding his weak start and billionaire Bloomberg being able to enter late made it very hard to develop a 2-4 person race that would allow the voters, especially the bulk of the voters -- who are not political junkies -- to get comfortable with the alternatives.
The current stampede to Biden is not because voters think he is the best. It's because they agree that he is acceptable and they want an end to the uncertainty and to get behind a candidate who will challenge Trump.
But, it's not because Biden's a man. In 2016, Hillary Clinton was the default. Indeed, she was so much the default that a younger and more vigorous Biden and Warren, who was then the undisputed leader of the left, didn't even enter. And a very talented Governor Martin O'Malley who did entering offered a less flawed center left alternative to Clinton couldn't get the time of day.
4
I believe most of the males and some females who rejected Elizabeth Warren, may have experienced flashbacks of a certain teacher they experienced in high school. One who demanded their best, stayed on their case and accepted no flimsy excuses for anything less.
A strong smart woman can be threatening to a slacker disinterested student or to an under-educated adult who thinks it takes a man to make the hard decisions.
2
Relax folks. There's always next time. The dynamic woman Hillary Clinton was the party's last presidential nominee. A female. That stands out - and shows that the party had no grand sexism among them four years ago. And I don't think that things have gone worse in the party since then - nor for women. I'm sure that there are fine women among the party who will be rising to the fore over the next ten years.
Identify politics undermines merit.
Do people forget Secretary Clinton was the Democrats nominee in 2016?
She won the Democratic nomination because she was by far the most capable and qualified candidate, not because she was a woman.
She won the national popular vote by 3 million for the same reason.
She was denied the Presidency not because she was a woman, but because Putin and the GRU attacked America’s sovereign election with imprisoned Trump campaign manager Manafort and 72,000 targeted votes in 4 Purple states in the Electoral College.
President Obama was the better candidate in 2008, not because he was black, but because he was brilliant and charismatic.
A candidate need not look like you, share your religion, gender, sexual orientation or ethnic background to best represent you.
Candidates that claim bias when they lose often fail to look in the mirror at their policy positions and campaigns. Warren came in 3rd in her home state.
The Democratic Party is pulling behind Biden to avoid what the Russian backed Sanders did to Secretary Clinton in 2016.
This is a fight for the soul of the Republic, the Constitution, the rule of law, freedom and democracy - and the existential threats facing humanity.
This is no time for tribalism and false rationales for losing.
3
Was It Always Going to Be the Last Straight Person Standing?
1
Why do you even ask the question?
Each one of the women who ran will make it easier for the next ones, which is cold comfort if you were the candidate.
Even given the level of male misogyny in the country, I remember being called a misogynist by Hillary supporters in 2016 because I didn't support her; therefore, I could not be a feminist.
Funny, I thought being a feminist meant that I got to make my own choices. Why would one switch from having men make our choices for having other women do it? Oppression is oppression no matter the gender of the would-be oppressor. So, take a deep breath and make your own choice for whoever you think is best. One day, it will be a woman.
4
It doesn’t help in all of this when U.S. journalism covers politics as sport.
“Who’s ahead?” “Who’s behind?” “Who is winning?” “Who can win?” are all terrible questions to ponder, when what we should be asking ourselves is “What future do we want?”
But “Who’s electable?” is certainly THE consideration I find people around me voicing — including women who were wary of supporting Warren, even though she was their preferred candidate, and mine — because they doubted other voters would support her in November.
Knowing the U.S.A. is a sexist country, people are leery of casting their vote for a woman… not always due to their own conscious sexism, or to having internalized the national sexism, but because we all know the USA is a sexist country AND the click-driven fourth estate — our principal means of informing ourselves about our democracy — finds it profitable to create breathless excitement around “Who can win!”
Guessing what other people are guessing other people will guess is a terrible metric by which to elect government officials. It’s a fine one with which to make a killing in the stock market, or in other similarly myopic arenas. But in politics it leads to mediocrity, always.
Who’s electable? If what keeps a good candidate from winning is smart voters believing their neighbors will only support mediocrity… well, I don’t know how to knock the U.S.A. off of this mediocrity treadmill. Not at the federal level.
But I know politics being covered as sport isn’t helping.
3
It wasn't about being a woman, it was about being Warren.
Oh, how I loved reading all the NY Times picks about how sexism/gender played little to no role in the failure of Warren (and Klobuchar) to gain any traction, much less other female candidates who dropped out. Reminds me of how elections weren't about race--until #45 made it so, long with all the reasons/rationalizations offered when even successful white women, much less women of color, still aren't well represented in governments, corporations, university hierarchies, blah.
One can always find an excuse or reason for why a single candidate didn't succeed, but the cumulative effect (it used to mean "disparate impact", but the conservative courts have decimated that doctrine) is same old, same old.
And Liz Warren has proven time and again she can overcome obstacles. create solutions to problems., and succeed. Also, she is "articulate" (remember when Biden was trashed for saying the same of Barack Obama and got trashed?), a woman without fancy creedentials who worked her way up to being--and surviving--a tenured prof. at HLS while maintaining as mother, and a caring human being.
Be real, folks: Gender still matters in the U.S.
Respectfully,
Prof. (emerita) Lynne Henderson
1
Yes women stand no chance for now unless we change the culture. In this country women don't support women. As I have experienced serving on a condo board. All the women serving think I am competition instead of part of the team. This country is the least progressive of all. Men think women are stupid and women see you as rivals.
1
FYI, Tulsi Gabbard is still running for president.
We now have two elderly gentlemen from The Silent Generation,The Silent Generation, working hard to face an obnoxious, ignorant Baby Boomer, for the the highest elected office in our country. Yet one more reason our country is the laughing stock for the entire world. What does this say about us?
As i remember it the last democrat presidential nomination went to a female. How did that work out?
Bloomberg, Buttigieg. Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick, Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet, John Delaney.
Cory Booker and Julián Castro.
Steve Bullock, Joe Sestak, Wayne Messam.
Beto O’Rourke and Tim Ryan and Bill de Blasio.
Seth Moulton, Jay Inslee, John Hickenlooper, Eric Swalwell, Richard Ojeda, Joe Walsh, and Mark Sanford.
They didn't make it, either.
Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren got further than all of them.
Maybe it's just the vagaries of any particular election cycle.
29
@Joe
I think you're right. And the two remaining candidates have some unique strengths that have been hard for all the others to overcome.
Biden is Obama's white friend and has all the nostalgia for the Obama presidency going for him. So for people who want to go back to 2015 and restore pre-Trump norms, he's very attractive. He's also been doing this since age 29.
Bernie is uniquely authentic and consistent with more than 30 years of being ahead of his time on social issues, global warming, health care, and civil rights. He's one of the two most anti-war politicians in the country, has the highest rating from constituents, and some of the highest approval ratings of any politician in the country (Warren is in the bottom 10).
So it's no surprise that these two would be among the strongest candidates at the end.
1
@Joe
Unlike most of the names you mention, Tulsi Gabbard has delegates and is still in the race.
The major media has decided to pretend she does not exist.
Chris Matthews did give her some time and Tucker Carlson.
2
@Joe
Does Tulsi Gabbard count as a person? The only person at MSNBC to show her any respect is Chris Matthews. They'll probably get rid of him for that.
Because lots of men are qualified too. Voters are entitled to make any choice they want, and this is the choice they have made. Being "qualified" is minimal: anyone with a medical license can practice medicine, but if you have a difficult problem you want a particular specialist.
Electoral success isn't a matter of being "qualified". It's a matter of persuading the electorate to prefer you. Not the same thing.
Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden had no business running for presidency when they have reached the limits of their life expectancy at birth in the US. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar would have made an excellent team based on the level of details they had laid out in their policies and the political spectrum they came from. There should be an upper age limit for presidential candidates. As a 30-year old, I don't want to vote fora president who will be in his 80s during his term and completely out of touch with the new generation.
2
As soon as the issue became "electability," given the overwhelming desire to beat Trump, the women had lost. Women don't look presidential (they are not men), no woman has ever been elected (though one got three million more votes than a man). The Y-chromosome became the one prerequisite. Certainly it wasn't competence - if anything, the women were more competent than the men. Likability? How can you dislike Amy with her smile and rosy outlook. Anger? It matters only in women, not in men, Bernie being the epitome of the angry old white man. When you exclude half the population (actually, more than half) from consideration, you have to live with the results.
1
identity politics is always a loser. gender is not per se a qualification or a disqualification. the office should be gender-neutral.
the 2020 candidates (and the winnowing process) deeply flawed in my opinion. Iowa, NH, NV, get rid of the caucuses of these non-representative states, and make it a straight primary vote. get the cross-overs out of the primaries. we live in the everyone wins/participant trophy era but a field of 20 that you can simply buy your way into in order to hear yourself talk, c'mon....
former prosecutors (Sen. Harris/Sen. Klobuchar): the left dissed them for no good reason - since when is being a prosecutor a bad thing? and got behind socialist Sanders instead
Sen. Warren - good ideas (too many of them) but folks know that we need some gravitas in the office, esp. in 2020 - no "goodie" remarks/hand clapping when a policy question is posed in the town hall - it's disquieting - couldn't even carry her own state, ahem.
combat veteran Gabbard (sorta)and a little out there if not a Republican
Mayor Pete - up and coming but without sufficient experience and has his problems with the people who make up the core of the Dem party (he needs to do what the Kennedys did and make his peace so he has built that relationship for next time)
a self-help celebrity (seriously?)
Bern -- the Ralph Nadar of his times and not afraid to burn down the house in service of his ego
vanity thy name is politics.
1
If the lack of women remaining as Democratic candidates is a dispositive demonstration of sexism, does the lack of remaining Democratic candidates younger than age 70 demonstrate bias against middle-age and ‘young’ people?
Well, most of our presidents have been middle aged- 54 is the median age of presidents. 9 of our presidents were under 50; FDR was 42 & JFK 43. Trump is our oldest.
Maybe there is bias against someone in their 30’s, we’ve never done that. But it’s a small window since 35 is the minimum age stipulated by the founding fathers in the constitution. If you’re too young, people question your experience; too old & they question your health & mental capacity. It’s true that our only choices this time are old guys, but that’s atypical.
Anyway, all that, but never a woman. So no, they’re definitely not equivalent.
I feel compelled to make two points.
First, I vigorously disagree with the assertion that a majority of Democratic voters “rejected” female candidates. Male candidates received more votes in the primaries to date, but I see no evidence that that was the result of people affirmatively “rejecting” the female candidates. A female was our party’s candidate in 2016, and that female candidate actually was the choice of a majority of Americans voting that year.
Second, remember that most of us Democrats have not even had the opportunity to vote yet this year. Female candidates had tremendous support in our own legislative district straw poll last month, for example, but those female candidates are no longer on the ballot.
So, with respect, I don’t think one can conclude that “Democrats have rejected female candidates.”
I do believe that Elizabeth Warren is out of this race because her Health Plan didn't make sense. There was just too much hand waving. The numbers never made sense. There is too much to be lost here to rely on that sort of hand waving. As an Engineer I know when an idea has not been fully thought through. That's when Engineers start to wave their hands because they have neither drawings or plans or figures. It was certainly not because she was a woman.
3
Of course there is still sexism, but I can’t help but wonder why Warren was leading in the polls at the beginning of the campaign. Did people all of a sudden realize that she was a woman? For the past couple years I was a huge fan of Warren and thought she was the most qualified to be president...........then came the free stuff: pay off college loans, Medicare for all, increases to Social Security checks, and much, much more. I am a progressive who would rather take small steps than be stuck with Trump for 4 more years. Elizabeth Warren, in my view, is very smart, has the demeanor to be president and has the potential to be a great leader. For whatever reason, she chose to run a very ill advised campaign and that is why she did not get the nomination.........sexism, in my view, was not the cause.
4
The democratic women onstage THIS CYCLE had a particularly tough go. That being said, it takes a GREAT woman to win over a MEDIOCRE man in all situations in american business and politics. But at least dont offer up corrupt DA´s (a white one and a black one), and a "I am woman give it to me to be FAIR. Plus let me pose as a Native American" ( a nerdy technocrat at that). And last cycle Hillary Clinton (really?) Barak Obama was NOT elected because he was BLACK, he was elected because he had a compelling message and clean background (relatively, for a life long politician who never had a real job). Next time get an Angela Merkel type. Are´t American women, in general, better than the poor candidates being coming forward so far? Or, since fairness and equality is the bottom line should we just begin to accept mediocre to lousy women candidates like the mediocre, lousy men candidates. Guess so. Welcome equality in America.
2
Warren misled us about her own corporate fundraising, misled us about her willingness to take PAC support, misled us about taxes and costs related to her m4a plan She posed as a crusader for regular folks but helped Dow Chemical shortchange women who were made sick by their breast implants. Had Bloomberg yelled at and interrupted her as she did him, he’d quite rightly have been killed in the media.
This is the second race Warren lost this year.
I'm already so tired of this sexism- and racism-related whining. Have all you whiners forgotten that for the most recent presidential election, the Democrats chose a woman as best qualified/most likely to win? And for the one before that, the Democrats had chosen a black man, as best qualified/most likely to win. Yes, the President as of January, 2021 will most likely be an older white man. Get over it.
1
Don't blame me. I voted for Tulsi.
1
Almost everyone is missing the mark completely. Listen, Elizabeth Warren was the smartest candidate and—by far—the best debater.
What’s more, she seemed to have thoughtful positions and plans.
Unfortunately, too many elections are simply popularity contests. We focused on electability and not likability.
On a more traditional note, Senator Warren never had broad support from African-Americans.
These same criteria apply to Bernie Sanders. He’s basically done.
I realize my comments might sound sexist, but the world—especially this country—will be a better place when women are in charge.
One last note: Joe Biden will pick a woman as his running mate. Amy Klobuchar is probably the best choice.
2
It truly still feels like it is Senator Warren’s time. I was looking forward to her gracefully hacking Trump to pieces, (which she would have and still could). She is more qualified than anyone else and importantly she is running for all the right reasons. A natural evolution of everything she has has done has set her on this path. All we had to do was pick her.
4
Yes there is ample evidence that misogyny is 'well and slive' in America. To infer that it was the sole or mI reason that Elizabeth Warren failed to gain needed support for bid to be the democratic presidential nominee. Warren is certaiblycpmpetent but her many 'Plans' didn't resonate with voters. Warren lacked the 'likability' factor. She comes across as too intense Nd bit of a 'know it all'. At timesshe came zcrosslike the nagging mom. Also tired of her repetition of her struggle to find child care in order to attend law school. We all knew about her aunt Bee. Most voters she was seeking to motivate didn't have an aunt Bee. A woman will become president but she has to be appealing to both men and women, young and old rich and poor.
1
Let's be realistic. Red states in this country still have a low opinion of women. Why do you think they continue the crusade of abortion denial and birth control denial? Women should be subservient to their husbands and do as they are told. Elizabeth Warren said she felt she really hurt Bloomberg when she confronted him about unproven treatment of women in his company's workplace. The truth is she hurt herself by appearing to be a screeching woman. That is unacceptable in America today. Until we empower women in red states and especially in the south, a woman President is far out in the future.
4
@pb
You’re right. She reminded me of the fifth grader who sits in the front row frantically waving her hand suing “teacher, teacher. Jane is chewing gum. It’s not fair. I Never chew gum. ....,Teacher, teacher. Johnny is passing notes, something I never, ever do. Teacher. TEACHER!!”
1
Thankfully Most Americans choose who to vote for based on their merits, and not their sex, race or religion. Of course, the author and many others in the media would wish this was not the case.
2
Ultimately, women are perceived as weak and unable to standup to aggression. Not my view but that of many I spoke with about voting for Hillary.
America is sexist. America is racist. Denying it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We are so backward in so many ways because conservatives, both Democrats and Republicans, want to believe everyone is treated equally and has equality of opportunity. This narrative is false. Poor people do not have the same opportunities as the rich. Women are still treated as inferior to men.
As long as we keep believing these myths, nothing will change. I am starting to believe most Americans really don't want things to change. For all the lip service Democrats pay about wanting change and wanting equality for everyone, we keep electing representatives who don't really want to change anything. Incremental change, indeed.
2
America hates liberals. If you wanted a woman candidate you needed to support Klobuchar. Of course she would never win against Trump, but she was the only women with any real chance to get the nomination. The democrats are not liberals and they only like women who have sold out to Wall Street.
They had that in Hillary.
These victimhood pieces on why Warren didn't win (sexism!) are tiresome, especially since Warren and Klobuchar played the woman card from the beginning of their campaigns. They knew that the only way to differentiate themselves from more than two dozen other highly-qualified candidates, including many men who were slandered as "just another white man" (Michael Bennet, Delaney, Swalwell, Hickenlooper, and so forth), they could play the woman-card to gain attention. In fact, in every single debate, we heard Amy Klobuchar tell us how she was a victim because she was a woman. She was no more qualified than anyone else, but she knew she could stand out by pointing out - again and again - if you didn't support her that you were a misogynist.
Shameful.
2
1920 is astounding recent date for women to be "allowed to vote". For lots of people, it could mean their grandmother couldn't vote at least for part of her life. America is probably still at least one generation away from innate sexism not filling the cultural gene pool. It was rampant with Hillary, came from women as well as men, always weakly cloaked behind "I just don't like her." The attacks on her appearance and age while not attacking the men for the same things was clear evidence but routinely denied. Warren got less of this, Klobuchar saw some, and Gabbard was the pretty one, which might be why she's still around. But all were seen as ornamental to the men.
There is one back-door chance that could break the chains of sexism. Biden should appoint one of these women for the VP spot. In fact, it would be unthinkable not to do so. I'd understand pausing to consider Bloomberg but not Buttigieg because Warren and Klobuchar have more to offer. Biden has the chance to work with both the first black president and the first woman VP It would be historic. Image the campaign they'd get to run. Change to believe in, part two.
1
Maybe it's because she's highly irritating.
3
Both leading Democratic contenders are from communities that have traditionally been left out of the presidency and faced discrimination: Biden is Catholic and Sanders is Jewish. We only had one Catholic president, and he was assassinated. We have never had a Jewish president. That should count as some "diversity."
2
I'm convinced that too many Americans have come to prefer dummies for President. It's really more a matter of anti-elitism, than gender. All of the major female candidates; Warren, Klobuchar,Gillibrand, Harris are well educated and intellectually superior to Biden, Sanders, and Trump. Let's face it Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Steyer, Yang are all intellectually superior to Biden and Sanders, but they're all off the campaign trail now. Too many people just sort of like the dumb folksy candidates. The first woman to be elected President is more likely to be a washed up Fox talking head than someone with an actual brain.
3
Does this explain why the NYT endorsed two women with vastly different platforms, who are now both out of the race? That was helpful. Hey guys, at least you can say that you supported women! Because according to this article.."America hates women" (what does that even mean?)
1
We need to ensure that there are women at the convention this summer who will actually nominate and second a nomination for Warren..........let the delegates for other candidates realize we are not taking this Biden/Sanders blitz as a given.
Before we knew what a fool the loser of the 2016 popular vote was, we, the majority, wanted a woman president. The only problem for H Clinton was the stupidity of the Electoral College. Did they not know anything about the Donald? For shame! Now look at America!
The choice is clear to me: Elizabeth Warren!
2
Face it - you can't fix stupid. I don't recall a more competent person running for President - in decades! The only thing she was guilty of was actually having the ability to cleanse a corrupt system. It was blinding obvious that's what cost her the election. The last thing anyone wanted was her getting into office and eviscerating a good thing. All that corporate welfare. Being female played a role but not nearly as much as the THREAT! Men use and TRUST female doctors and lawyers don't they? Hello? Nancy Pelosi?!? Being female certainly hasn't hurt her!
For the last several weeks not one article would dare even mention her name. That's what cost her the election. They suffocated her. If she were smart she would do what Bernie did and keep driving her point home until 2024 when they can't silence her. I personally foresee the Liz battle - Warren versus Cheney! She needs to keep the momentum going. She is the greatest thing that could've ever happened to this Country but the American people are simply to stupid and blinded by a corrupt media. Precisely how Trump got elected - exploiting the ignorant!
2
If people are idiotic enough to vote for Biden over Warren or Klobuchar at that, we have problems independent of the gender of the person in question.
Here is a pretty dim person who can’t put a sentence together, who had pandered to the one percent all of his life, who is not intelligent or particularly well-educated, who is popular among blacks because they are afraid to rock the boat (unfortunate problem stemming most likely of their slavery past and the second class citizenry that followed until MLK marched with Bernie Sanders and not Joe Biden on his side).
The problem is not a gender issue, it is a national issue: being brainwashed by an American rhetoric that dons the brain.
I think the average voter is becoming extremely fatigued with the gender framing of candidates. Yes, female candidates face a higher hill to climb but when an undecided voter is trying to pick a candidate, they won't do so because one is a woman and they feel a woman deserves to be in the White House. They'll pick the person who aligns with their interests (whether that's something like healthcare or just beating 45). Warren's candidacy was always framed around her being a great woman candidate instead of being a great candidate, full stop (which she was!). I think that's preventative for getting many an American on board.
1
The real question is: "Why doesn't the democratic process pick the most qualified person?"
By limiting this query to women, you implicitly seem to claim that the process works for selecting the most qualified man, which is a pretty ridiculous proposition. The democratic process, as someone said, is the worst process, except for all the others. If women are being ignored at a higher rate, it has something to do with the process that is based far more on the prejudices of the time than on facts, but sex is only one of many prejudicial factors tilting the outcome.
Did I sleep through the 2016 election and just dream that a woman was the Democratic candidate for President? And she won the popular vote. Is the bar now set to indicate that something is wrong if a woman isn't the candidate? The Democratic primary voters expressed themselves. Let's move on to elect the Democratic candidate in 2020.
2
Do not think this is currently a woman's issue. Just 4 years ago we had a woman as the candidate for president.
Do not think Hillary Clinton lost because she is a woman. She had some issues that were overblown, so she lost.
Senator Warren played the gender card. Did this work well for her?
1
Cue all the men saying it's not misogyny. Saying that they would have voted for Warren or another woman candidate if it weren't for this little thing or that little thing or some other little thing.
3
People didn't vote for Biden because they thought he was most qualified. People voted for Biden because they believed he is most likely to beat Trump. There is a big difference.
1
There is no future for feminism.
Nor is there a future for democracy. Look back at a glorious 230 year history in the US based on an amazing Constitution including a Bill of Rights, that guaranteed basic freedoms, like Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, the Right to Due Process, including a Trial by Jury, not Trial by Media with conviction based upon accusations and no checking.
What happens between now and 2100. Well we waited too long. The earth will warm some, parts of the world will see a vast change in climate.
By 2050 the population of Africa will double yet again.
As I write this another wave of refugees is crossing Turkey from Syria hoping to find refuge in Europe. But the first wave led to the rise of Urban in Hungary, of Duda in Poland, of new strength in the right, and Brexit. How will Europe absorb the new wave and the endless waves after that?
The population of Guatemala quadrupled since 1960. The result is children trekking to the US border. These waves will grow until we admit the underlying problem.
Without addressing population growth, there is no hope for the fight against global warming. Yet liberals characterize those who would discuss overpopulation as "racists."
When we shut off debate, we also shut off the functioning of democracy. The public will never understand the true nature of the problem that destroys their quality of life, and that brings an end to all of the liberal aspirations, that I once believed myself.
2
While there's more than one variable responsible for Warren failing to catch fire, I certainly believe that unconscious bias is one of them. I don't know how you apportion percentages, and I don't think gender bias is the main culprit, but I'm convinced it was a factor. People, including well-intentioned people, fail to recognize the influence of bias at play here. That's why it's referred to as UNCONSCIOUS BIAS. And that's why many of the people who don't recognize it are males who have never been subjected to it.
3
Let’s face the reality that no one wants to say or openly admit: majority of Americans still see women as a second class citizen. Despite progresses that women made in the corporate world, many men still see them as an existential threat. It’s easier to elect a black man as president, and I predict it will be easier to elect a gay man. Sadly I don’t expect a woman president in my generation.
5
The majority of women in national polls indicated their preferred candidates are men! I am stunned that so many women voted for Donald Trump and plan to vote for him again. Women Democrats had at least three highly qualified women from which to chose, yet most prefer one of two old white men. When and what will finally "woke" the majority of women in the U.S.? Are they under some sort of patrimonious spell? C'mon girls, it's the 21st century.Time to make your moves. Get together, get a plan, you can do this!
4
Friends disagree; but I believe America will elect a gay man before they elect a woman.
4
There are formal and informal Presidents and leaders...Nancy Reagan was an informal one and so will Dr. Jill.
2
Subtle at times, but the overall negative implications of "women" leaders became a self fulfilling prophecy. "Can a woman beat trump?" was asked often and feeds the fears. The most qualified presidential candidates in 2016 and 2020 were women and that did not count. Liz is just what this country needed to check corrupting influence of $ and really help the majority of our citizens. She had the knowledge, work ethic and the ability to compromise where needed to accomplish her goals. It's not about voting for any woman, just the candidate who would make the best
president, who happens to be a woman.
2
I was so looking forward to Warren debating 45.
I am so disillusioned.
4
The two septuagenarian candidates are the best the US could do of three hurndred million people, the quality of education imparted has something to do with it, not being able to produce better able leaders.
1
It did not have to be.
But despite 3 years of inclusivity, equality, minority, women, gays and such claims, it has become obvious that Democrats want a white old rich life long politician to be in charge. All this talk about some one new, young blood, new points of view, all that was nothing but hot air.
Wish the Democratic party had said so from the get go, and had not wasted every one's time for years.
The question is, when the GOP runs a woman for president, will people vote for her, a woman, or will people vote against her party, the GOP.
There is no perfect human being, in this most perfect of all worlds. But people seem to vote for party first, then habits second, and for the candidate third, in that order and they stop when the satisfied one prerequisite, but only in that order.
We won't change until people change. And that is not going to happen.
2
Misogyny is really the wrong word for what’s going on here. It’s not a hatred of women that holds them back, but there are biases in play and the end result is unequal treatment.
Women are held to higher standards than men running for office. People complain about Warren checking the native ancestry box on a job application as dishonest because she does not have any cultural connection to that ancestry. This one half-truth that anyone who’s ever applied for college would happily take the opportunity to tell is said be comparable to the thousands of outright, bald-faced, often hateful lies that Donald Trump has told. Women can’t turn themselves into Teflon, the political dirt sticks to them much more readily. They have to make fewer mistakes than men and come off as more qualified. They also must refrain from pointing this or any other sexism out or they’re accused of whining and making excuses. When women go on the attack they have a much higher risk of being viewed negatively, even when their attacks are well founded and land hard. Warren skillfully demolished Bloomberg’s candidacy in the last two debates but people complained how she was too shrill.
I do believe a woman can win the presidency, but she will need to campaign at least as well as Obama did. He faced many of the same obstacles that women do and still won convincingly. The biases against women can be overcome, but it requires more political skill than any of the women in this race ran with.
1
Elizabeth Warren would have been a very strong candidate and an excellent president. I wish she were the Democratic nominee. While it is certainly still difficult for a women to be nominated, it seems facile to attribute her failure primarily to sexism. Assume there were 16 reasonable candidates originally, six of them women. Now there are two, both men. But picking two candidates at random from those 16 gives more than a one-third chance that both would be men: the first pick has a 10/16, or 5/8, chance of being a man; the second, if the first is a man, has a 9/15, or 3/5 chance of being a man; 5/8 times 3/5 = 3/8, or 37.5%
Although this simple argument assumes the choices are statistically independent, which may not be true, it does suggest that the result is not in itself strong evidence of prejudice, We should not despair.
And recall that in the last three presidential elections the Democratic nominees were a black man (twice) and a white woman, all of whom won majorities of the popular vote. This doesn’t mean that white male privilege is dead, of course, or that racial and sexist prejudice have been eliminated; just look at the rhetoric of the current President and many of his supporters.
But, pulling back, we can still believe that, “"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” This belief is no excuse for complacency, of course; rather, it means that we should persevere and strive to keep bending that arc.
-- Billy Salter
Ms Cardoza stated "America hates women". That has to be the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard, and coming from a high school teacher no less. At some point in our history there will be a President that just happens to be a women. She will be elected to the office because she is not only capable but understands the issues both domestic and foreign and will be respected by everyone.
So far every candidate that happens to be women has put that fact in the forefront of their campaign emphasizing gender issues which is not a winning strategy. The other loosing strategy is decrying "white men" young or old. I have an enormous amount of respect for women and expect the same in return. So in my opinion if you want "Madam President " take a hard look at how you run your campaign and promise to represent everyone regardless of age or gender.
As a man I agree it's time for a Woman President, but the Landscape is different in this Political environment. Trump is Toxic. Never have the Democrates had an opponent like him. I think many Primary voters are just want him gone.
Did this make it an unfair challenge for a Women? Did voters just want to play it safe? I would like to believe that, and not Anti Woman. Remember a Woman received 3 Million more votes than Trump. It's time for U.S to do what it preaches around the World, Elect a Qualified Woman.
1
Don't fool yourself. Being "liked" is important in politics, as it is in life. The women candidates did not lose because they were women. They lost because of not being able to get enough votes(some of it was lack of funds, some of it issues, etc.). As an older white man(72), I voted for Hilary every time she was on the ballot, not because she was a women, but because I thought she had the experience to do the job. But I knew my male co-workers just did not like her, and not because she was a women, there was just something about her they did not like(make a big deal about being a women, and you will lose their votes, act as if it does not matter, and working class men will vote for you). I did not support Warren, not because she was a women, but because I thought she did not have the personal skills to do the job. I stayed with Amy until the end, because I though she would have made a great President, the kind we need. She did not make it, partly because of a huge field, not enough attention, not enough money, etc.. I still think if she had been nominated, she is the type of candidate who would beat Trump in a landslide, but she could not get past the Democratic party. A women can get elected as President, but she cannot make a big deal about being a women, but must just show her ability to do the job, and not make her sex an issue. For me, the only choice left is Biden. I think that if Bernie is nominated, Trump will win.
You don't have to choose a candidate because of the likeability factor just about every male candidate for president has at one point been; abbrasive, made you dislike them, said the wrong thing, backed the wrong idea, picked a weak/controversial running mate, etc.
Everyone gets criticized for something at some point by someone, no exceptions. Some people become to much of a danger to the 'people in power' and they will do anything to keep a tight chokehold on that distinction.
The American Voter should only focus on the IDEAS put forth, the PLANS laid out, HOW they will affect you, your family, your community and the country as a whole. THEN after you have Discussed and Debated on which is the best set and chosen that particular one, should the 'gender' behind that idea set, play in at all.
Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, gender is still a great barrier to entry in every level of job.
Everyone who has made it to the top of one field or another. They used the misfortune of those before them, the inroads made by past defeated attempts. No one makes it to where they are headed, simply, 'just by themselves'. Women earned the right to vote by many WOMEN challenging the system over multiple generations all across the country, and staying United and there were MEN who stood with them!!!
Why can't we Unite behind a Common Good, whether it fits your exact tastes or NOT.
We can hammer out the fine details afterwards.
We've set this pace for now, so LFG!!!
I supported Warren and am heart broken she is out of the race. But we most remember that it is not a race between two old white men. Bernie Sanders is Jewish and as such is still breaking the mold of almost all other presidential candidates who have been WASPS
1
The pink wave continues to chip away piece by piece at that glass ceiling but it has completely shattered yet.
1
Which Harvard or Yale graduate best represents America?
Warren didn’t win over enough voters. Not even close. Not even the female vote, Biden won the female vote. Not to mention - our MOST RECENT NOM WAS A WOMAN. This is so pathetic to blame sexism. I didn’t see an article blaming homophobia for Pete not getting further. Liz is great at attacking others but she plays the victim immediately for herself.
3
I remember a NYTimes analysis after loss of Hillary Clinton against Trump headlining “there is no solidarity among women”
Even though Trump is the anti-feminist himself and bragged with sexual abusive language and crude behavior (and still is) - more white women voted for Trump 2016 than for Hillary.
So why should it be different in the much less polarizing event of the caucus?
2
Warren’s best male comparable, policy-wise, was Sanders, who came into the race with a lot more name recognition and a national fund-raising base. That certainly factored into his greater success.
If you look at another female candidate, Amy Klobuchar, her best male comparables were probably Bennet and Bullock. All were accomplished but relatively unknown moderates but Klobuchar was ultimately the most successful of the three. Still, name recognition, tied to fund-raising and votes, was a huge challenge for her.
Several candidates who gained high name recognition and surprisingly high levels of donations were niche/celebrity candidates who were arguably not even qualified to be president. The press loved them.
Added to that was the phenomenon of self-funding candidates, that Cory Booker complained about so bitterly, who bought themselves a head start.
Certainly gender biases exist, but both highly qualified males and female candidates were sidelined in favor of 1) well-known elder politicians who had been in the public eye for many years 2) poorly qualified novelty candidates whose human-interest value gained them extensive news coverage and 3) self-funding rich guys. There was never going to be room for everyone.
In a sense, we lost a generation of middle-aged candidates whose failure lay in not starting out famous enough, not developing an attention-getting “brand,” and not rolling in enough money.
Still, they might have made the best presidents.
1
I preferred Warren until she jumped on the maximalist Bernie train (the one headed over the cliff) with her position on Medicare for All. Reason tells us that a single payer system would be the fairest and the cheapest way to handle healthcare for the nation but I don't believe that a majority of VOTERS are there yet. In the end your positions have to align with the voters if you want to get elected. I wasn't convinced that Warren had the political savvy to both beat Trump and fight the avalanche of Big Healthcare and Big Pharma money as Hillary found out in the 90's. Being the "fairest in the land" like Bernie won't win the contest.
BREAKING NEWS: Many people, including women, actually want the person they believe is most qualified.
Maybe we need an elected monarchy. We could have whatever category you want as Head Of State, while feeling free to elect the most qualified President.
And yes, we have many different ideas as to what constitutes "qualified." After all, it wasn't that long ago that "best qualified" was not the person with the cleverest TV one-liners, as it seems to be for many Americans across the political spectrum today.
BREAKING NEWS: Many people, including women, actually want the person they believe is most qualified.
Maybe we need an elected monarchy. We could have whatever category you want as Head Of State, while feeling free to elect the most qualified President.
And yes, we have many different ideas as to what constitutes "qualified." After all, it wasn't that long ago that "best qualified" was not the person with the cleverest TV one-liners, as it seems to be for many Americans across the political spectrum today.
The truth is that a woman was the popular choice for president in 2016. Hillary Clinton actually won the election but the quirk of the electoral college handed the White House to the most corrupt, unqualified candidate in American history.
I am a gay male, but that doesn’t mean I would have voted for Pete Buttigieg. Women, too, are not single minded and they vote on the basis of qualifications and electability.
Elizabeth Warren has been touted as the great female hope. Indeed she has some excellent ideas but she was too overbearing during the debates. She refused to yield to other candidates and kept talking after moderators repeatedly told her that her time was up. People watched the debates to hear the positions of all the candidates. Warren acted as though hers was the only voice that mattered. That turned me against her and would have turned me against a male candidate as well.
As others have said, the most important thing in this election is defeating Donald Trump. I support whichever candidate can do that, which now appears to be Joe Biden. I am virtually certain, too, that he will pick a female running mate.
1
"If a woman is highly qualified to be President, why isn't she?"
Because maybe she is not the MOST highly qualified person. Maybe she is not the most appropriate person for the moment.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. That alone shows that sexism in terms of picking a President is not nearly so prevalent as some would want us to believe.
3
I believe that there is a segment of the population who will never vote for a woman because of her sex but I think in this primary many didn’t vote for one of the women candidates because they didn’t appeal to the electorate or other reasons. Warren was in a difficult position because she appealed to the same part of the electorate that have supported Bernie. That is why the moderate candidates, both men and women, dropped out. Moderate voters were moving to Biden.
Running for President is like any job interview. In addition to having the skills and experience necessary to do the job, the candidate must also be liked by the employer and deemed to be a good fit with the organization. The voters determined that Elizabeth Warren, along with other candidates--men, not just women--were not a good fit. I fail to see how this means that there is bias against a woman being President. If Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, and the other women who ran where the only candidates out of the race and all the other men--Bloomberg, Styer, Buttigieg, Booker, etc. were still standing, I'd agree with the woman bias thing.
This must be the third or fourth Times article in the last two days on bias against a woman being President. Part of being a professional, and especially a professional politician--male or female--is to avoid blaming others for one's failure, learning from one's mistakes, improving where needed, and moving on. Warren's references to little girls and "pinkie swears" (whatever that is) are not doing her any good either.
It is tragically short-sighted that voters have not yet realized that woman's time has come and that a woman leading the ticket would more likely deliver a better future, but it is understandable. We are in the throes of a long transition from male-dominated social, political and economic structures to female-oriented structures, and presently at the tipping point, we try to know what direction is best when all around us in in chaos. The transition to a female-oriented society is essential if we are to preserve life on Earth, including our own. For 15,000 years, men have been destroying Nature to build cities. They've been waging wars and destroying the environment. Continued male dominance will produce more of the same until we are in a Mad Max world. It is not so much the time for a woman to lead as for all women to lead.
1
I believe Elizabeth Warren's wounds were largely self-inflicted. Her plan for how she was going to get elected was crafted - unlike any of her other plans - against the advice of experts.
Had she become the nominee, I did worry that she would face a backlash with moderates due to the #MeToo movement and the kind of excessively woke culture that Barack Obama called out brilliantly several months ago. Obama suceeded as an African American because he embraced nuance and didn't automatically rush to judge others - he embraced complexity. Elizabeth was perceived as someone who often rushed to judgement a little too quickly, and seemed quick to side with the nominal underdog at all times.
I think Elizabeth herself was a victim of identity politics, because for some people, her being a blond haired, blue eyed white woman meant that they were never going to cut her slack for identifying with her native American heritage ancestry, or her families stories, which they saw as cultural appropriation plain and simple. Despite her tremendous efforts to reach out to communities of color, she failed to gain traction with them.
1
Well now. One needs to be careful of the highly strung tripwires around this topic, but an obvious comment is that at one point not too many months ago, this race was Warren’s to lose. That she stewed the pooch is somewhat obvious.
Second point: a very competent woman is still in the race. How is Tulsi Gabbard not good enough to merit the punditocrats lately totally ignoring her candidacy?
And third and I note this before zipping up my flack jacket: if women candidates get the votes they will be elected...there are more than enough D women registered to elect a woman if they use that as the primary criteria...that this did not happen reflects more on the candidates than on societal bias.
1
You wouldn't know it from reading this article, but Tulsi Gabbard is still in this race. She's able to stay in it because she, like Bernie, has funded her campaign with 100% individual-donor contributions. No PAC money. Other than the self-funded Bloomberg and Steyer, the other candidates drop out as soon as the prospects for continued PAC money evaporate.
Clearly the DNC has no use for Gabbard. Yet by winning two delegates on Super Tuesday she has qualified for the next debate. It will be interesting to see if the DNC yet again changes its rules to keep her off the stage.
2
Warren lost mainly because of Medicare for all, and her many programs that were a bit too left for many. Sanders was not hurt as much because he had already staked out this ground with his already-established followers--but Sanders WAS hurt by these same issues in Super Tuesday. Lets be clear: Dems don't want a far left candidate. Yes there is sexism, and its from BOTH sides when women use their gender as the sole qualification.
I voted for Warren, but she has flaws as a campaigner.
The issue of sexism is real, but not as bad as some say. Clinton DID win the popular vote, despite being targeted in a Republican propaganda campaign that began 25 years ago, precisely because they recognized her as a formidable political force way back then.
There are many female governors and senators who are excellent. Biden will almost surely pick one of them as a running mate because it is his strongest political move, not to balance the gender of the ticket. And that reflects the true strength of women in politics today.
No one is 100% healthy. Likewise no one is 100% unhealthy. Sickness is a sliding scale. It changes from day to day but certain pathogens limit it's movement toward hea;th.
I'm speaking about mental health, because we live in a sick society. Bullying works because it is a simple form of psychological conditioning.
Behave as I want you to or you will be punished and just to show you I mean business, I'll punish you anyway.
This is the fundamental strategy of patriarchy. Imperialism and slavery, homophobia and child abuse. It's all that simple at it's core. What's not so simple are the strategies we have to develop to live with it. Because it hasn't gone away, despite enormous strides in consciousness brought about by feminism and civil rights.
Misogyny, as complex and nuanced as it might manifest itself is never the less simple bullying which cultivates mental illness.
The women who accommodate this with a smile are probably the majority, though the percentage varies greatly from place to place and remember it's a sliding scale of wellness and sickness.
This majority of bullied women suffers from Stockholm syndrome, and that's why we have so few women in positions of leader ship STILL.
It is not feminine. Slaves suffered from Stockholm syndrome. LGBT people too. Immigrants newly arrived are being conditioned by the Homeland Security forces as I right.
Want a female president american women? — free yourself. It's as much an inner path as an outer one.
The Dems had a cache of intelligent, competent women in the race and the DNC, in an organized strategy, shoved every one of them out of the race in lieu of Old Man Biden.
Half the country wants Trump, the other half doesn't. The half that doesn't is divided between status quo and change.
The DNC blew it. They should have let the primaries play out without interference because the half that doesn't want status quo and Biden, which includes millions of Americans that didn't/won't vote for Biden, aren't playing along.
Voters don't choose the POTUS directly (or we would have had a Clinton presidency). Instead the game is how to rig the Electoral College in your favor, and in this case, the Democratic establishment believes they can rig the system best with Biden or Sanders.
We really need to get rid of the Electoral College.
1
"...many women bristled over the idea that they would back a candidate because of their gender."
There you go--that's how the media and some politicians framed the question. Not "Will you back the most qualified woman or man," but "Will you back a female because you're female?"
Meanwhile, millions of people cheerfully vote for men because, well, they're men. But no one is ever asked, "Will you vote for a man rather than a woman because of his gender?"
2
If it were Nikki Haley instead of Elizabeth Warren, I hope the governor wouldn't automatically win base on her gender but in the case of Senator Warren, she's the only one who had a real shot at rooting out the rot in our government.
And at some point, we have to ask ourselves, when so many key Obama advisers become lobbyists immediately after their stints at the White House and Washington was almost as swampy as 2020, just more transparently so, how truly wonderful was 2016 that we must return to that time?
Although I don't deny that sexism and racism still exist, it's also quite possible that the two white men left standing are the two best qualified of all the candidates.
In addition, they are the best known candidates, with the longest public service records. People like to vote for someone they feel they know and thus can trust.
1
Why is this author framing this as a gender issue?
When Warren gained prominence in 2016 and 17, I thought she was presidential material. She was outspoken and aggressive and showed leadership. In fact I thought she was better than Clinton.
I was more than happy to see her announce her candidacy. But she made the same mistake that Al Gore made. She focused on policy and plans and forgot about creating excitement. The Native American stuff and the Medicare for All fiasco did nothing to help her. She focused on tearing other candidates down and not building excitement for herself.
She didn't lose this race because she is a woman.
She had lots of fire 3 years ago but brought none of that to her campaign.
Misogyny is built into part of our culture. Unfortunately it is primarily in the Republican culture. So Dems believe that they have to have a man to beat Trump. I don't understand why this is such a mystery. Unfortunately, also the Dems powers that be are afraid of Bernie calling himself a Dem Socialist which is a belief system that carry Dem's highest aims. I think there is also a belief that he can't get any Republicans, when, in fact, he could probably get a lot more people like non-voting Dems who don't see Biden as representing their values. The Dem powers that be don't get Bernie's incredible positivity. As a medicare plus participant this is better medical than I have ever had. Bernie is not a communist or a socialist. He is the best man running.
It's simple; America is profoundly, albeit quietly, misogynistic. Everything that is traditionally "female" - child care, home cooking, caring for the sick, caring for community, even clothing and hairstyles - are seriously undervalued here. I am a feminist, but I believe that the feminist movement has been too much about allowing women to be "like men", and not enough about valuing these traditional female roles and values.
This misogyny permeates every corner of American life, not just politics. It's the reason we don't have universal health care, paid family or sick leave. It's the reason school lunches are of such low quality. It's the reason men "can't" have long hair, or wear dresses, heels, or even the color pink. Feminism "allowed" women to wear pants and short hair, work outside the home and accumulate wealth, but it didn't encourage men to grow their hair, care about community, or stay home to raise children.
Obviously, there are many men who share these values, but as a culture, we fall short. Only when we are truly equal will we have a woman president.
1
There were quite a number of women who started out int he primary. The two strongest, Klobuchar and Warren, obviously have to deal with the roadblocks that all women face.
But let's dissect their campaigns. Klobuchar stayed on message. She couldn't harness the African American vote, but as a fairly young senator she gained traction.
Elizabeth Warren blew it. She had an early and promising start to her campaign, despite the video of her getting a beer from the fridge and taking a DNA test to prove her, um, sliver of Native American heritage And then she wobbled and wiggled. Medicare for all, no, yes, maybe.... Demonizing Mike Bloomberg--I think we're tired of hate Elizabeth.
The good news is that they were also joined by other women. There was a real roster of different women running for president. I vote for the best candidate. I am a feminist. Warren was not the best candidate.
Time will tell but I believe twenty years from now this issue will be moot because the older voters will be gone. That generation was raised to believe men are better than women and the best families have a man who works and a woman who stays home to raise children. I hate to use the term sexism but that it exactly what was ingrained in the entire generation.
A woman WILL eventually be President. It’s actually pretty simple.
Men with limited education WILL. NOT. VOTE. for school marm or lecturing type women. These are the very women who flunked them into the jobs they have now. Even relatively successful men, and there are millions, can be very sensitive about their lack of educational qualifications. Their success makes them very resistant to be lectured to.
1
So, Ms. Lerer starts off with the obligatory 'women's rage' at Donald Trump, and segues to:
"For the first time in history, Americans saw a diverse group of female leaders pursuing the country’s highest office, an elite sorority that included former prosecutors, senators, a combat veteran and even a self-help celebrity."
And then she nearly discounts Tulsi Gabbard totally, but manages to include her, saying, "As the party moves toward picking a nominee, the last man left standing will be, most certainly, a man."
Were the prospective nominees members of "an elite sorority" or were they individuals who could not stand up to the rigors of the campaign? Did they represent themselves as ready to take on the Presidency or did they fall short? Were their records strong enough to underpin their quest for the highest office?
Or was this all just sexism?
I guess, if Nikki Haley runs for the Presidency, members of the media like Ms. Lerer, will evaluate Ms. Haley's service as a Governor of a major state and as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., and will stand up for her campaign.
No, unfortunately, Ms. Haley is a Republican woman, and will fall short in the categories treasured by the New York Times.
And none of those categories will involve sexism.
2
I don't get why Warren picked a fight with Bernie on whether a woman could win. This just seem like bad judgment that alienated many who had been sympathetic to Warren. No one thinks Bernie is sexist, so why would she try to imply that? Then she started attacking Bernie as ideologically rigid. Why is she attacking Bernie? If she's really progressive, why not attack Biden? Warren clearly had big problems with the Biden bankruptcy bill, with Biden negotiating the "grand bargain" which would have cut back social security, with Biden's coziness with big banks. She is far more eloquent on economic issues, which made a challenge to Biden much more natural. So why did she keep attacking Bernie - her advisors were way off, and she did not take control of them. Unless Warren can show that she was willing to think independently and show good judgment, she is off on attacking the outcome as sexist. The outcome is sexist for Harris and Klobuchar too, insofar as they cannot attract as much money - that is the problem. There's never been a female VP either, so I'm hoping Bernie announces one soon, as he said he would after super Tuesday.
I look forward to a female president. I voted for Hillary and was hoping for Amy. That said, if people vote for who they want, and not because it's a man or woman, then that is all anyone can ask. Concluding that Joe Biden is best candidate to beat Trump is just as likely a rationale decision as a potentially sexist one.
1
This country does not value women or people of color. Nothing will change as long as we are afraid to vote for the candidates we actually prefer rather than the ones considered “safe” within current societal norms.
Simply look beyond the United States and you encounter women leading government. The cultural shift in attitude here has not happened. We are still dominated by a Congress of old men and, and voters—those most likely to vote—that skews older. Perhaps we need our female “Obama” to break through.
No worries! Dr. Jill Biden will be The President in practice...just as Nancy Reagan pulled the levers of power.
1
The first Catholic was Kennedy.
The first African American was Obama.
Extraordinary individuals.
Don’t be surprised when a lot of great women don’t make it.
It is going to take more than just great.
1
@Jane
The first is often extraordinary. Jackie Robinson is a huge figure in American History. Nelson Mandela, a huge figure in World History.
Yes - let’s pretend this is unique to the backwardness of America only.
Even France, often held up as a model of liberal values, has never had a female president.
I highly disagree with this opinion piece because it assumes that Warren is simply just another victim of a male supremacy. She’s not and stop trying to make her out to be. She came in third place in a race she ran. That should be the end of that story.
She wins as a Senator but couldn’t win the gold medal as President in this race. It’s like, all of these opinion writers intentionally forget, that she placed third in a primary race only a few Americans citizens will every run in, and she was able to do it because of all she has ever worked to accomplish which is much more about her merits than her gender. Give her the credit she has earned for trying this time, finishing third, and stop trying to make her out to be a victim of losing an election contest. Voters didn’t chose her this time... in a contest that only ends with one winner. This time, it wasn’t going to be Warren.
3
When I vote I look at what the candidate stands for not their race or gender, having said that The US presidency and the Vatican have been an all-boys club of privileged rich old white men. This reflects the attitude of society towards girls and women. How women are portrayed in movies and in advertisements shows our expectations from them. Change starts at home, what we give our girls to play with, what dresses we expect them to wear as they grow into teens and how much we expect them to excel in science and math matters.
When I see grown women on TV wearing tight-fitting dresses and high pencil heels to please an audience in their jobs I see little hope for our girls.
I'm a lifelong liberal guy. Women have always been equal to better than me. All I have is my strength.
I was a Warren supporter early on, but was less than impressed with her debate performances in total. I watched them all. Not that I liked anyone else better.
Klobuchar was not liberal enough, but makes for a very good senator.
Gabbard seemed most presidential because of her military toughness (which also put me off). Not sure I trust her on my values check-list.
Gilibrand is the only one that really pushed my prejudice buttons. I liked her but had a hard time picturing this doll with the girly voice in the Oval Office - an electable issue.
This year electibility is key. Trump must be beaten (to death-arg!). So voters were not only voting their own prejudices but considering the prejudices of others.
1
it is a fair question. However of the women candidates why was Warren getting the most hype? I do not think she has shown the tact to actually Govern with all we evil men. Let alone moderates.
One reason attributed to Mrs. Clinton’s defeat was that woman did not turn out in the same numbers as in the 2008 and 2012 election.
2
The reason Warren is out is that she is too far left. She had all the tickets to win, except that she would have been labeled socialist, and that would have doomed her chances for presidency.
2
Are people really pushing sexism as the reason someone who finished third out of four in their home state will not get nominated for the top job in the country? This after the nomination was handed to a woman last time? As they said on "Highlander", "There can be only one."
Senator Warren has a lot of good qualities. She is also deeply flawed and made some huge mistakes. She is human, as we all are. But no one has a reasonable expectation of winning the presidency or the nomination, and she was far from the best bet for the party in this field.
3
I was an Elizabeth Warren supporter. I agree, it is time for a woman President.
But at the same time, all of this whining about the Patriarchy is pretty annoying. We had a woman Presidential candidate last cycle!
This seems to be forgotten among all the victimhood.
4
The issue with a woman being elected is the idea that a woman being elected is a big deal. Hear me out.
Many Americans, men and women, strongly believe that sex shouldn't matter. Other Americans insist "but sex does matter!" Neither group is wrong but the second group is behaving in a way that is counterproductive: by emphasizing sex as a factor, they are making it less likely that a woman is elected.
Thatcher and Merkel, the most prominent and successful women polticians in recent history, did not emphasize their sex. They played it down. Similiarly, Barack Obama did not run on "being a black man".
My point is that, when you have women candidiates saying things like: "Women are held to a higher standard" (Klobuchar) and "Studies even show that when women go to Congress they get more things done" (Gillibrand) and you have so many articles like this one that simply assume that Warren is a "woman-candidate" rather than a "candidate who is a woman," you are decreasing the chance that a woman is elected.
This is why many people predict that the first woman president will be a republican. A republican candidate will be less likely to emphasize her sex. To me, Nikki Haley seems well-positioned to be the first female president.
All it will take a is a great woman with great ideas and she can be elected. The fact that Warren didn’t win is not a criticism on Americans supposed sexism, it’s an acknowledgement that her ideas were overwhelmingly disagreeable. A person should never vote against a candidate because of their gender, but they must also never vote for a person solely based on their gender.
1
There is no “should” in politics. There’s only votes. And women’s votes propelled Sanders and Biden.
I think we’re mistaking qualified with electability.
2
Perhaps the electorate prefers charisma. Makes you wonder what democracy is about after all.
It’s absolutely true that sexism is involved, and that’s disgraceful.
HOWEVER, people with sexist views still have the right to vote. So when selecting a candidate, electability is a key component. Sexism (or racism) does not disqualify you from voting. It does influence how people vote, sadly.
Regrettable but it’s the fact.
The voters didn't pay much attention to
the policy proposals of Ms Warren.
Mr. Biden's surge typifies the
preference for status quo which democrats think will lead to the victory.
Electability against Mr. Trump has
become the major consideration.
Misogyny is certainly a factor. Ms
Warren and Mr. Sanders have almost
similar agenda for change but Mr. Sanders has done better. He is louder
and forceful in advocating his position
than Ms Warren. Loud and forceful
are the qualities American voters prefer.
Intellectual trait embodied by Ms Warren doesn't sell. Be dumb and loud as Mr. Trump has proven is the winning
formula.
1
The answer to the headline’s question why we don’t have a qualified female president? Because she was outmaneuvered by Trump four years ago.
Stop blaming the democratic party’s electorate - they brought Obama into power twice, they tried to bring Hillary into power (reminder that she was nominated, and won the popular vote), they just seriously entertained a gay candidate , and very well might nominate the first Jewish candidate in history.
For the democrats at least, electability now lies fully on the shoulders of the candidate in question.
1
So far, every election year has been "not this time," and every woman to run has been "the wrong woman." We are in denial that every year is the year of "If not now, when?" -- and that every deferment is a step towards never.
1
I'm speaking as a White Male so of course, everything I have to say is suspect. Nonetheless, this discussion is way off base. Mrs. Clinton got 66 million votes for President, so it's simply not true that this country won't vote for a woman President. I certainty would, if the right woman were nominated. The same as I vote for whoever is the right candidate -- regardless of gender or color.
People seem to forget (maybe they never knew ...) that once upon a time, we couldn't elect a Catholic. Or a person who had been divorced.Or a person of color.
Of course, there will be a female President. They just have to nominate the right woman. Mrs. Clinton was a flawed candidate, to put it mildly. Perhaps the only public figure who could have lost to Donald Trump. And did.
Senator Warren trails her own collection of baggage. No need to itemize the entire list of her flaws. But it's not insignificant that she lost the women's vote in her own state on Super Tuesday!
It's pretty simple. Put up better candidates, and you'll achieve better results. Blaming "sexism" is merely an excuse.
God forbid a person doesn’t want to vote for an extremely left wing candidate whose “plans for everything” have no chance of being realized. Woman or not— intelligent or not— I’m not voting for a candidate who openly advocates for de facto open borders, reparations for slavery, and numerous extreme untested rebalancing acts of the economy, not to mention uses the issue of sex relentlessly to advance her candidacy while broadly painting others as anti-woman.
2
In the 1980's, I watched as two qualified and experienced women battled for the governor's mansion in conservative Nebraska. It isn't about the gender, it's about the person.
Hillary Clinton is a two-faced liar, and no one wanted to suffer through four more years of Clinton-style crony capitalism and special favors. The ONLY time Hillary was honest, was when she referred to half of the American population as a "basket of deplorables." Because that's how she really feels about the average American slob on the street.
Elizabeth Warren comes across as a little wooden at times, but she's definitely more likable than Hillary. But the crazy socialist utopia she was trying to sell, with free healthcare, free college, free this, free that...it wasn't going to work for Middle America. Half of Americans get their healthcare from their employer, and they are nervous about having it taken away for some DMV-style healthcare delivery. Agree or not, it is the truth. And free college, even as a bleeding-heart liberal I am vehemently AGAINST that. I attended a mediocre state university because it was free. I have ZERO sympathy for someone who wracked up $200,000 in student loans getting a communications degree at an elite private school.
Trying to nursemaid the American population from its own stupidity is the worst kind of liberalism. People rejected that, not Warren's gender. Bernie Sanders is about the learn the same lesson.
Warren was and is never qualified to be President. Hillary really is, Amy is almost there and Kamala needs more federal level experience, same with Pete.
1
Equality of opportunity does not entail equality of outcome.
There are dozens of current female president, PM's and leaders of countries around the world.
There have been hundreds in the past decades. The US is not unique in its hatred of women to such an extent that it blocks them from being President unlike EVERY other country in the world - including some that are so misogynist you have to ask how did they elect a woman.
You need good women candidates. Period.
And - most importantly - you need to accept that poor women candidate - like all poor candidates regardless of gender, color, orientation or any particularly fashionable "ism" will fail not because of prejudice nut because they are poor candidates.
Constantly climbing on board the grievance float merely serves to reinforce the regrettable stereotypes that the grievance prophets have taken over half of the population. We don't elect professional victims to the highest office.
The fact that Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar lost to a demented man who lost the nomination twice on the grounds that Joe Biden was "safe" tells me that sexism was definitely a factor. Even if one wants to fault her ideology, Amy Klobuchar was a far better candidate than Joe Biden. Joe Biden's only requirement for winning was that he is not Trump. Women's are that they are modest but not too modest, likeable but not groveling, attractive, experienced, smart, not too authoritative but they must be strong, they can't have an annoying voice, they have to wear makeup, and definitely no pantsuits. Are they held to a higher standard? Yes. And most people who deny this are men, probably because they don't consciously think about it.
1
There are plenty of places in this world that are just as sexist and even more gender restrictive but that elect women to the top leadership position. I cite here Pakistan, India, and the Philippines, among others. When the United States as a society begins to face up to how we think about sex itself, we might be getting somewhere. That's the challenge for everyone, and we haven't figured it out. Me, neither. "In America, sex is an obsession. Everywhere else, it is simply a fact."--Marlene Dietrich
Wait a minute! Didn't we Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton and didn't a majority of Americans vote for her?
1
Perhaps the answer is as simple as run as a leader with good ideas and principles, and stop running as a “woman” who is overcoming sexism, misogyny, etc. When you carve up the electorate like that, your support base is smaller from the get go and you will lose.
Checking my notes: Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes...
1
Warren has been in the US Senate for 6 years. Before that, she was a law school professor. That hardly makes her "highly qualified."
Same with Kamala Harris, a first term senator who has never run anything, except a DA's office that prosecuted African Americans harshly, as did Amy Klobachur.
Nikki Haley, two term governor of South Carolina and Ambassador to the UN would be perfect. But I suspect the women who want a woman president will attack her viciously as not being a 'real' woman, as they have other GOP women.
Plus ca change.
Would love to see a female president and was convinced that Hillary would be the first one. However the incompetence of the DNC to pull the party together resulted in the victory of DJT. Sorry to say but the lame support of Warren during the Hillary campaign didn't help either. Possibly in her mind the little girl wanted to see her as the first female president.
In 2016 Hillary Clinton was a thousand times more qualified than Donald Trump. Yet, 63% of white male voters and 53% of white female voters voted for the ignorant, immoral, hate mongering, racist, misogynist, pathological liar, "business" man with multiple bankruptcies, accused by multiple women of improper sexual behavior and assault, Donald Trump. What's that calculus? Hate and racism is better than competence? It was to those voters.
2
One thing I believe we keep forgetting is that America DID elect a female president in 2016. The Electoral College Game with the aid of Russiain meddling through Facebook and Twitter subverted the inauguration of Hillary Clinton. We already showed America is ready for a woman president. But can a woman win against the most crooked incumbent ever? Many people hedge a “No” on that because she aspirationally pushes Medicare for All? Warren would have been a remarkable, stabilizing, transformative President. But America doesn’t want that. America gets trump for four more years. How stupid.
Every time I heard the word "electable" what I really heard was "a white man".
1
Has nothing to do with their gender, they all promoted dangerous socialist ideas. Americans are captialists!!
1
You didn't even mention Tulsi once in your article about female candidates...
2
Ummm … I seem to remember that we did elect a woman in 2016.
So many countries have had women as leaders -- Britain, India, Israel, Argentina, Germany, Phillipines, Pakistan, etc.
Though I believe it's a matter of time, the USA clearly has a reactionary streak in it.
Imagine the vitriol (by women, most likely) that would be unleashed on a female Republican candidate for president.
1
Hillary Clinton was the candidate of choice for president.
She had way more votes than Donald Trump.
She lost the 2016 election because of the electoral college.
To view her race for president to that of Elizabeth Warren is a false comparison and has nothing to do with gender.
More Americans voted for Clinton than Warren.
When a candidate's own state rejects her, that screams volumes.
6
@Marge Keller
Hillary Clinton was the choice of the successful elite. She said it herself. I won where people were doing well.
Media headlines: Elizabeth Warren is "not electable"
(Elizabeth Warren drops out)
Media headlines: Oh no, the best candidate just dropped out!
2
If you truly believe that sexism isn't a part of the equation, then you must believe that no woman has ever deserved to be president, and that no woman has ever been good enough to compete with a man.
Which is, for the record, the very definition of sexism.
2
Of course a woman can win. A woman already did. The electoral college appointed the loser of that election anyway.
“Can a woman win?” is not the question I am asking in 2020. I’m asking, “What can I do to elect a new president?”
Have you all forgotten that Hilary Clinton was the Democratic Nominee in 2016? Unfortunately for Warren she appealed to middle aged and older white women.
It's usually unremarkable to expect advanced Western nations to have a female head of state at some point in their history. What is it about the American voter that is so obtuse on the subject?
2
Women from both parties have been elected governor in many states. We have shown a willingness to elect women to chief executive positions.
Are there sexist attitudes that play a role? Sure, but they are not insurmountable. Attitudes on race play a role as well, and we elected a guy named Barack Hussein Obama twice.
Maybe someone like Kamala Harris learned something this go around. Biden failed in his previous attempts. Heck, it took Reagan a couple of times to get the nomination of his party. A woman will be elected President eventually.
While Sen. Warren made some errors in her presidential campaign, she also was a serious and credible candidate. Male candidates also made mistakes. When competing for the presidency, women are judged by a higher standard than men. The NYT helped fuel this double standard by providing excessive coverage on its front page of Sen. Warren's so-called likeability problem.
2
I stand by my prediction.
The first female American president will be a Republican.
(Nikki 2024!)
1
Why is everyone acting as if Bernie and Biden are the same! Bernie would be our first Jewish President! No one seems to be thinking of the Jewish boys and girls who would see themselves in Bernie. Is it that only gender matters?
2016 Presidential Election Popular Vote
Hilary Clinton - 65,853,514
Donald Trump - 62,984,828
Sorry you were saying...?
2
If only qualifications and competence were a true measure of becoming POTUS...I mean a semi-literate grifter with a vocabulary consisting of a grand total of about 50 words currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...just sayin
3
I would like to point out that the gay guy, the black guy and the other rich white guys are also no longer considered viable.
Every election cycle there are those who are chosen and those who are rejected. No candidate enters a level playing field.
Maybe the right woman candidate simply hasn't come around yet. Unfortunately knowledge and experience often take a back seat to being likable and garnering broad support. For instance, John McCain was thrashing George W in the early primaries. As soon as W moved more to the center of conservative, he started winning because he was more 'likeable' than John who was hands down more qualitifed but who could be acerbic and undiplomatic at times.
As a woman, I wouldn't vote for HRC because she didn't bother with working class whites, not because I didn't think a woman could be President. I also didn't vote for He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named because while he was raising issues we need to address, his solutions were laughably wrong.
1
I, also, would like to see a woman President, and I voted for Hillary Clinton with great hope. But you can't blame it on misogyny. More than half the voters in America are women. Likely, more women voted for Hillary just BECAUSE she is a woman than men voted against her just BECAUSE she is a woman. I do hope that whoever wins the current nomination will choose a younger woman as V.P. candidate, who will run and be elected in 4 years.
1
Look no further than the press and their treatment of the primaries as a horse race. If you aren't either in "win" or "place" the press is a no-show, and you are declared dead in their hyper environment. As long as this is th e treatment, our best qualified candidates will fall to the wayside, and the hucksters and showmen will emerge. Look no further than the POTUS for proof of that assertion. From a policy standpoint, no one could touch Ms Warren. She inspired, she rose from a lower middle class working background, from nothing essentially to a law degree with 2 kids, studying at night, to professor of law at Harvard. Do any of the other candidates have that resume? NO. She even worked for the common man in her testimony against the credit card industry and Joe Biden during modification of bankruptcy laws in the late 1990's. I voted for Ms Warren and am disappointed others failed to notice her vast qualifications. She would have destroyed Trump in any debate. Look what she did to Mike.
2
I voted for Warren in the California primary. It had nothing to do with the fact she is a woman. It had everything to do with the fact that I thought Warren overall was the one who had best mix of experience, bold ideas, and prior success. I voted for Clinton in 2016, not because she was a woman, but because she was at every level a better candidate for President than Trump.
I liked Klobuchar. I didn't like Kamela Harris or Gillibrand, who I saw as opportunists with little substance, just like many male candidates over the years. Nothing to do with the fact that either was a woman. I liked Buttigieg, and it had nothing to do with the fact that he is gay. I found Andrew Yang's ideas refreshing, and had nothing to do with the fact that he is Asian-American. I thought Booker and Castro could be interesting, but again, nothing to do with their racial and ethnic status.
I will vote for Biden, Sanders or Gabbard - whoever is the nominee - because that person will be infinitely better than Trump.
Understand that saying America "hates" women, or a woman cannot win, is a gross generalization. The same argument could be made about gay or racial/ethnic identities, since those candidates all dropped out. If Sanders loses, is it because he is Jewish?
Women make up more than 50% of the voting population in the United States, and have outvoted men in every Presidential election since 1964. If every woman voted for a woman, we would only have women elected. Full stop.
1
The bottom line for each voter was not “who’s the best candidate?” but rather “who do I think can beat Trump?” In a normal world “let the best person win” usually makes sense; in fractured and factionalized Democratic politics, not so much.
For me, anyway, this isn't about M vs F. I prefer Amy Klobuchar, Kamila Harris, and Hillary Clinton to any of the men running. (I'm a 62 yo white male.) Warren may blame sexism for her loss in the primaries, but for me, the problem was not gender, but Warren herself - she's not the one. As has been said a million times before, Hillary won the popular vote substantially and should have been president if not for the electoral college.
Richard Lugar was highly qualified to be president, but never came close. Why didn't he? many, many others have been passed over who would have been great. Why didn't they?
There are two systemic problems for why the most qualified and best candidate failed.
1. Our electoral process is a joke. The absurdity of the perpetual campaign cannot be overstated.
2. Media coverage creates echo chambers of false narratives (i.e. electability, etc) that adversely affect voters' decisions. This is exacerbated by point 1.
2
The primaries should be the time to vote for your favorite candidate. The general election is the time to vote for the candidate that is either your favorite or the one that is viewed as the lesser of two evils. The bottom line is vote, and vote again. If more people did this, we would be much better off...and Trump would not be in office.
Logic and reason; there's none of that here.
Dysfunction and emotional choices wrapped in
fear mongering, yes.
2016 presidential election; best insult comic, best carnival barker wins.
Maybe, it will be different in November.
1
This country is not ready to elect a woman president. And before all the clamoring about Hillary and her "flaws" begins, try this thought experiment. Had Hillary been a man, even with her "baggage" she would have garnered at least 65% of the votes in 2016. And then imagine this - had Donald Trump been a woman, with all of his "baggage" he wouldn't have gotten 6,000 votes, much less 60 million.
We know that sexism played a role in Liz Warren's failure to become a Democratic front runner. In 2016 the purists denounced Hillary Clinton as "too centrist". But we had Liz Warren with undisputed progressive bona fides. And what did we hear from Democrats? She was too extreme, and we need to nominate a centrist like Biden. Are we to believe that all of a sudden Democratic purists became hardened pragmatists?
So let's take a look at both the progressives who are or were in this race. Liz Warren is nearly a decade younger than Bernie Sanders. She is in excellent health. She didn't have a heart attack on the campaign trail. And she offered specific plans and programs, not just Bernie's repeated rants. So why didn't more Democratic voters support her? You tell me.
Women candidates are still judged by some "Goldilocks" standard - either too aggressive, or too weak, or too timid, or too "shrill". Men, on the other hand, may have all manner of "flaws". I've been a proud Democrat all my life. I'm in my 60's. I am a lawyer, and a woman of color. And I know sexism when I see it.
2
Define Qualified for president. If you mean a US natural born citizen of 35 or more years of age, then yes Warren is highly qualified. If you mean prior experience running a government as the central executive, then Warren is unqualified. Having "a policy for this and that" is what low level staffer wonks are for. All Warren has run is a few people in a senate office.
If a woman wants to be president they are free to run. Hillary got the nomination in 2016, so it’s not “always a man the last one standing”.
Not that many women have run. When more run, one will be elected.
Elizabeth Warren was not a good candidate. End of discussion.
It is not that Warren is a woman, it's that she's too far left to win Ohio and Pennsylvania, and because of this corrupt electoral college system we have, that is the top requirement. I voted for Hilary last time (over Bernie, and of course over Conman Don), but it was mainly because of her politics, and her being a woman was the icing on the cake. I looked for Klobuchar to take the lead so I could vote for a moderate, but she just didn't. I'm sorry we don't have a woman, but above all we must win, or our very democracy is in grave danger. By the way, I *love* Warren. If we didn't have the EC, I would have voted for her.
Please keep your eyes on the prize: More important than a woman president or woman senator is women in politics.
Leaders are constrained if not shaped and determined by political forces; they are at worst figureheads, and at best team leaders. Women should be the team.
Being qualified is not the same as being acceptable by too many males who are uncertain about their own worth and therefore see women and minorities as a challenge to their masculinity. And then there are women who are jealous of other women who have made it into competition in a "Man's" world. While educated women see other women in elected office as a benefit, uneducated women in Christian Conservative states still believe a woman's place is in the Home cooking, cleaning, having babies and raising them so the macho men can appear to be the "Head of Household". Yes we are still living in those times in large swaths of America.
Warren promised everything to everybody, and came off as inauthentic. That's why the "Pocahontas" attacks were strategically effective; they were accusing her of being the type of person who would claim to be Native American to work the system to her advantage. Klobuchar started late, never raised the money, but has a much better chance to be president in a future presidential election. This was nothing but good for her.
So what are you expecting? The democrats gift a female candidate so to appease the women's equality movement, the MeToo mob and any other downtrodden cause? All the candidates had qualities, some a good deal more than others but to state the blindingly obvious, democratic voters were not sufficiently impressed with any female candidate's ability to maintain a challenge.
It's not gender bias, however much various groups bleat on about it, it's confidence in the candidate and their ability, in a democracy to run the country. If there was an truly outstanding female candidate ( just as if there had been a truly outstanding gay candidate), you'd still have a woman challenging to be the pick to face Trump.
You haven't because there weren't.
1
Oh, for heaven's sake, get a grip, Democrats. Four years ago, America elected a female president, by 3 million votes over her opponent. She was one of the most qualified presidential candidates in US history. An antiquated function called the Electoral College nullified that election. We WILL have a woman in the White House, and she WILL be a Democrat.
As an independent and an accountant, Mrs. Warren’s policies seemed implausible. However, I was more than ready to vote fo4 Am6 Klobuchar. The fact that we have to choose between 2 old guys neither of whom is terribly good is sad.
1
Don't blame us. We were all set to elect Hillary, who was super qualified, and obviously women voters were a significant factor in Trump's win in 2016. Second term of George Bush all over again.
The first female President of the United States will probably be a Republican. Not because she will be smarter, more qualified, better educated or more experienced, but because she will run on a political platform the masses buy into and because she will not engage in any gender identity politics.
I doubt Golda Meier, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel achieved success because they tried to trade on a moral entitlement based on their gender or explained their defeats as a byproduct of gender discrimination. Indeed, nearly all these women (with the possible exception of Merkel) achieved power in spite of societies and eras that were far more hostile to female leadership.
Too many Democrats are caught up in the trap that suggests electing a woman is a moral obligation to correct some past wrong. This will not only fail to create broad appeal, it plunges them and their supporters into a self-fulfilling prophecy of gender based victimhood when they don't achieve success.
Like it or not (and I can't say I do), I'd lay good money that Nikki Haley has a chance of winning in 2024.
I've seen cases where this "sexism" also flows in the other direction. I've read voices of women, who see Warren's loss in favor of Sanders as "Just another old white man in office", and who may even not bother voting as a result.
Really?? Sanders and Warren had almost the same platform, with some minor variations, and Sanders has been championing it in the public spotlight longer. He has the following already Warren wasn't able to achieve. Warren is experienced Senator, but Sanders has been serving in office quite a bit longer too.
But for some who wish to elect a woman, on basis of gender alone, a man will never cut it. I see this as a reverse sexism case that is no better than the foul they are calling.
This country already elected a female president. Her name is Hillary Clinton. It’s just that the Electoral College elected Trump.
Warren dropping out wasn’t about gender, it was about Warren. Voters weren’t just looking for a highly qualified candidate, they were looking for the best candidate to beat Trump in swing states. Warren wasn’t it.
Male or female, don't really care but would love to vote for a woman because I honestly feel they would be sensitive to key issues I'm concerned about like equality and discrimination. But Medicare for All is a no and paying off everyone's student loans is a no so Bernie and Warren must go!
The first female US President will be a conservative, a la Margaret Thatcher in Britain. Think Nikki Haley. For better or worse, conservative women do not alarm the electorate as much as left wing candidates.
1
Honestly, I see the same issues affecting Warren as affecting women in all lines of work. Women with extensive experience and skills are constantly passed over by men with less experience and skills for high positions of leadership.
This is a failure across our society, and we are in denial as a nation. Until we come to grips with our sexism, we will continue to waste the opportunity to put effective and capable women in charge of large institutions.
1
Elizabeth Warren was, qualified functionally but lost me and a lot of suburban women, black voters, and many male and female independents when she bashed men, bashed religious people and bashed men and women who do not embrace same sex marriage. At one of the debates, Warren was asked what she would say to someone who believes that “marriage is between one man and one woman.”
Warren began by saying that she was going to assume the person asking this question was male (Mistake one: blame men) before explaining that she would tell the man in question, “Then just marry one woman. I’m cool with that.”
Warren then delivered the perfectly timed follow-up, “Assuming you can find one.” (Mistake 2: show an arrogant disdain for men and women with this religious belief).
Many in the audience applauded and more applauded on social media. Many of us do not feel comfortable being part of a coalition led by people like Warren who have an intolerant mindset.
Biden, Klobutcher, Mayor Pete probably would have answered the question this way: “Marriage is a religious sacrament for many people. It’s sacred. And for many it’s a big part of their faith. I respect your opinion. And no one will ever infringe on your right to believe in marriage in that way. But I also respect that it is only fair to recognize a same sex couple with the same state rights as heterosexual couples.”
No one wants to be lectured to or made fun of. Most women don’t want to see their men beaten down for their beliefs.
1
The answer to this question is obvious, and twofold:
(1) because sexism is real
(2) because men keep running against them
Imagine how different this race could have looked if it was Warren vs. Klobuchar vs. Harris vs. Gabbard. And even moreso of with the upfront endorsements of the likes of Bernie, Joe, Mike, Pete? At that point, it truly would be "about her platform."
Qualified white men who profess to want more diverse representation in politics need to step aside and start pouring their money and campaign energy into supporting diverse candidates over their own egos.
3
There will be a woman president, but I expect she will be a Conservative and Republican rather than from the other side of the spectrum. When you look at women who have won in other countries - Thatcher, Merkel, May and Gandhi spring to mind - they are more often than not from that side of the political spectrum. And one thing they all have in common: None had anything remotely like a militant feminist agenda. They ran and won on their convictions and political positions, not their sex.
How about blind auditions? It has transformed the gender composition of major symphony orchestras. Once you penetrate the coasts and get a feel of the public sentiment throughout the entire United States, one can only conclude that this nation is at least one generation away from electing a woman as President. On hand other hand, if Joe Biden has any smarts about him, he will ask Amy Klobuchar to run with him. Everybody knows Joe is only in it for one term, so his vice president is all but anointed for 2024. Once America sees how President Klobuchar handles the office, we should finally be free of the sexist notion that a woman can't or shouldn't be the president.
1
All politicians are flawed and imperfect (actually all of us are). But before we give gender as an excuse for the failure of women to win in these primaries we should ask what issues other than gender voters weigh as they make their choice.
I strongly believe that gender is not the reason we have two old white men left among the dozen Democrats who competed. After all Hillary won the nomination in 2016 and blew the very winnable race.
This year, unlike in 2016, few women had Hillary's name recognition, track record of high office and accomplishments, and fund raising ability.
I would look to Governors, Senators who have served in the Cabinet and women with high name recognition to win next time. Maybe Warren has one more opportunity?
At some point we need to stop leaning back on sexism every time a woman doesn't win or achieve a goal. As well, stop using over-simplified comments like "she was fully qualified, so why didn't see get it?" be it elected, or a job, or any sort of role; then fallback on sexism as the only possible fail case. Qualifications are great, but so are how you speak, and the opinions and values you voice. A top qualified candidate can easily blow it, man or woman.
Looking back at this primary, I considered myself very interested in all the candidates, even women. However I can clearly state that certain views female candidates cast can be clear dealbreakers. I'm sick of hearing "I've won every election so far, so I will win this one too". It means nothing. As a male, and one who value's women's issues I feel, I also get turned off by female candidates who blatantly champion #meToo agenda to the point of vilifying men.
Gillibrand's feminist message was a bit too extreme for me as a national concern. Kamala Harris's victim status toward Joe Biden's history was a huge turn off for me, and that she kept using it to gain attention was a rejection for me. Klobuchar was a good candidate, but too moderate for me. And when it came down to Bernie or Warren? I would vote for either equally, and support Warren, but Warren is now out of the race.
I think this reflects on the candidate's agendas, and what they choose to champion, and less about gender itself.
42
@MH
"Qualifications are great, but so are how you speak, and the opinions and values you voice. "
I'd say it's judgement. Clinton's is abysmal. Warren (and the other candidates, both male and female), had some questionable instances. Whether or not a dealbreaker depends on the voter.
@MH
It's not a complaint about "every time A woman doesn't win or achieve a goal. " - it's NO women.
Unless you believe men to be somehow superior in some way, 0% is telling when 50% of the population is women. Statistically speaking, the odds of NO women having been elected to the presidency are laughably small.
Given that we did manage to elect a black president twice - which was quite a bit statistically MORE unlikely - there is clearly more going on here than an objective assessment of qualifications.
So your votes speak louder than your words.
26
@MH
“ I considered myself very interested in all the candidates, even women.”
Wow!! EVEN WOMEN, imagine!
We 50% are just so grateful …
24
Let me just say that we here in the NW are still many weeks away from our primaries, I supported Senator Klobuchar, I like her temperament, but now I am forced to choose between two tired old guys and I am very disappointed.
Consider this about running for President.
Richard Nixon won the Presidency on his second try, so did Ronald Reagan and so did George HW Bush. Sanders is on his second try, Biden his third.
A woman will become President, but like many candidates before her, it may take more than one attempt to win the trust of a majority of voters.
2
I think Warren was a great candidate.
I'd like to remind that Michigan (that barely went for don the con) in 2018 voted in a female Governor, female Secretary of State, female and openly gay Attorney General.
I suspect that if we went back to parties STARTING by building a platform and THEN selecting candidates who will support that platform (instead of the absurd circular firing squad / popularity contest brought on by primaries) we would have had solid female candidates for President and Vice President in many more election years.
25
@brian
So few people seem to understand public policy, certainly far fewer than think they understand public policy, that collectively deciding on a platform would most likely result in gibberish.
Look at the most poll-optimized nominee ever - Hillary Clinton. The total collection of policies she proposed seemed kinda incoherent. Each one may have been popular, but this is not the same as good, compelling or consistent with other popular policies.
The world is a very complex place. Elections will increasingly come down to a couple key issues and people deciding on who they trust to make decisions on their behalf. Campaigns based on a hundred polls or a hundred plans convey a fundamental misunderstanding of people.
1
This is not a gender issue, as much as the pundits would like to have us believe. Elizabeth Warren made a bad political calculation with her Medicare for all policy. I was voting for her right up to that point. Then she did not show enough political flexibility to make it a positive. That killed her chances.
I’ll tell you one thing. I’d vote for Elizabeth in a heart beat in a different political environment. That women is a fighter, on the scale of an Abe Lincoln, but this is not the time for a political upheaval.
21
@Paul
Elizabeth Warren's failure may or may not be a gender issue.
Institutional discrimination against women has been ingrained in our Constitution. The President is referred to he or him all over our Constitution. Women weren't granted the right to vote and it is implied they can't serve as President.
At the end of the civil war race was specifically protected from discrimination. Granted Jim Crow took that away in a flash.
The 19th amendment gave women the right to vote in 1919. It didn't rewrite the male domination written into the constitution or protect women specifically from discrimination. The ERA amendment would have fixed that but of course it still hasn't passed.
It may not be a "gender" issue to Warren specifically but there is certainly a gender issue in this country that needs to be addressed. Passing the ERA amendment would be a very good start.
10
@Paul
No?
@Paul
Let’s tap the brakes on the Lincoln comparisons, Liz...um, Paul
2
My priority is not getting a woman elected. It’s getting Trump defeated. Women can defeat Trump at the polls, whether voting for a woman or not.
Nothing else matters. If having a woman run gets Trump re-elected, what hope do women have of keeping their basic human rights? There is a time for symbolism, and this isn’t it. The fundamental need that all American women share is to get Trump out of the White House. Any Democrat, male or female, gay or straight, is better for women than Trump.
34
@Barbara8101
Thank you for the grownup perspective.
1
I believe that the eventual Democratic presidential nominee will choose a female running mate. And given the advanced age of the current front-runners, I expect to see, before this decade is out, a woman occupying the Oval Office as President of the United States.
77
@Cecil Shepherd
And I strongly hope that woman is Elizabeth Warren! She is the best of all of those who were running.
10
@Cecil Shepherd It's basically a given that Biden and Bernie will take a woman VP, and many people are predicting Haley (who I personally despise) will replace Pence, so it's quite possible that 2024 could be an all female general election.
1
@Cecil Shepherd I think it is likely that Amy Klobochar will be on the ticket as VP.
1
I voted for Bernie because the winds had blown his way by Super Tuesday but I supported Liz before the obvious deflation that occurred. I was also willing to switch because I have little taste for in-fighting among progressives and even less taste for half measures - Team Liz broken discipline at a key moment and lost the positive network feedback loop and never got it back. If you are going to hit someone, they better not get back up. In pitching for Liz, women my age tended to agree they like her but older women said they hate her and find her annoying. Most of my male friends liked Liz and stuck to their guns on super Tuesday. This is just anecdotal though.
1
I never looked at Warren. She was a 69 year old liberal Senator from Massachusetts whose only public sector experience was 6 years in the US Senate. Her foreign policy credentials were thin at best. And she had no executive experience. I was looking for someone under 62 with executive level experience in government who didn't come from California or the Northeast Corridor.
The person who should have run but didn't was Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth. A 50 year old disabled veteran with a multi-cultural background with experience now at the state & federal levels (both legislative and administrative) she'd be an awesome candidate. But with 2 small children, she's not running at the moment. I hope she does. She's what I was looking for in a candidate.
I’m a woman and liked Amy but she was off the list by the time the primary got to our state.
I’m not going to vote for a woman simply because of her gender. I also like Warren but don’t think she can beat Trump. That’s all there is to it.
20
According to national polls conducted in the third quarter of 2019 (that's the latest comprehensive data I could find), 17.3% of women among likely democrat voters favored Elizabeth Warren. 7.9% favored Kamala Harris. 49.2% favored Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders, with the remaining 25.6% divided among the rest of the candidates.
By reducing the complex set of considerations underlying people's votes to a simple formula like sexism, should we all assume that somewhere between 49.2% and 74.8% of democratic-leaning women (all those that didn't vote for Warren or Harris) are sexists? And what about republican-leaning women? are they ALL sexist too?
Why is the underlying assumption in this line of arguing that men who don't vote for a female candidate are sexist, whereas women not voting for a female candidate are motivated by a much more benign and enlightened deliberation of the candidates' political platform?
1
Yes, a woman can win.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, despite having a high unfavorability rating.
The women competed and lost. How many men have competed and lost? Plenty.
True that women must tiptoe through, but they can win. Be more hopeful, Ms. Lerer.
The supposition seems to be that Warren was an excellent candidate when she really was not. She flip flopped on Medicare For All, had an unforced error with the DNA debacle and seemed to relish in beating up on Bloomberg when she clearly should have been attacking Sanders.
Most importantly, the Harvard professor didn't connect with many voters. She not only didn't win any of the 18 states that voted, she didn't even come close.
Many of us would love to see a woman become President. But Warren was not a particularly compelling candidate.
2
Gee, I wonder why the electorate is so focused on the question of who can win (with the underlying dog whistle of “not a woman“), rather than the issues. The media eulogies for Elizabeth Warren’s campaign have been great. The coverage of her campaign, not so much. I read over and over that her Medicare for All stance ruined her chances. And yet Sanders’ less nuanced and comprehensive Medicare for All position makes him a front runner. One analysis for him, another for her. I almost expected reporters to ask her “ And what about Benghazi?”
2
Senator Warren was on the Rachael Maddow show last night talking about the economy and the how to deal with Covid-19. I wish that conversation was part of the last debate. I think that may have made a difference in her campaign. She is so knowledgable and competent and what we need right now and that just became so evident in that conversation. I know it's time to move on, but it struck me hard. What are we doing? Why are we not putting the most competent person at the helm?
2
It may not be time for a woman to be President, but it is definitely time for a woman to be Vice President. Elizabeth Warren is the perfect candidate to run with Joe Biden and unite the progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic Party. Every woman should immediate push for that to happen. Now is THE time and Warren is the woman.
2
As an old and impassioned feminist, I for one, felt and still feel that Hillary Clinton was the wrong woman to be the Democratic nominee in 2016. She had and still has too much baggage and I felt strongly then that it was her oversized ego and rank ambition that got her there but ultimately defeated her. I was never a Hillary fan and though I voted for her because I did not want Trump in the White House, I did so reluctantly. We cannot vote for women based on their gender, we have to look at what their qualities and qualifications are.
Elections aren’t executive recruiting processes. Her “qualifications” are a small part of the picture. We connect (or don’t) with candidates at many levels. In this case, Warren was the front runner. People wanted her to be the candidate. Biden didn’t “beat” her, it’s more like he’s the last man standing. Warren blew it. She remained as extreme as Bernie, mostly in attack mode. Her claim that she was a capitalist was never explained, so she failed to separate from Bernie. Presidential candidates are like brands, people need to see themselves through them. Was her disconnect due to gender? Or her?
I am African American. I remember thinking, even when casting a vote for Barack Obama, that there was no way this country was going to elect a Black president. I was hopeful, yes, but still cynical. Yet, the following eight years taught me something. Ultimately, race, gender identity, orientation, religion - none of that matters in terms of electability. It's the person underneath it all that sways the electorate. My point being that when the right woman comes along, she will win.
1
Would a woman disguised as a man be more likely to get elected?
2
Oh my god, it's the plot of As You Like It. Maybe we aren't so far off from 1599.
2016 was a woman... Who beat a man...
1
@Andrew Yep. Hillary won the popular vote by a very comfortable margin, ~3 million votes.
But so many people seem to be saying, "Well, we tried a woman once and she didn't work out. Better not pin our hopes on another."
I yearn for the day when voters will finally say that about male candidates!
2
I wonder if a country that has never had a queen could ever have a woman as head of state by election.
Women didn’t vote for a woman either. Is that misogyny as well
Yes. You are seeing it here. Not voting for who you want because you think others won't based on their gender creates that feedback loop of electability. I voted for Warren because I know she would be the most effective but other people's fear about gender even though they agreed with me kept us from having her. That makes me angry and disappointed. If we all stopped NOT voting because of worrying about someone else's bigotry then this feedback loop ends.
2
So the only way to prove I’m not racist or misogynistic is to vote for someone whose policies I don’t like? Talk about your ’Catch-27s’... don’t want to be ‘mis-odd-genistic’
EW was my initial pick for president.
Until she unveiled one plan more radical than the next. Medicare for all was a non starter. The federal government could not and should not be a giant medical insurance plan. It was neither practical not cost effective.
Certainly, EW could have been a great president. However, the wider electorate decided otherwise. And this time they went with a safer bet.
This bellyaching has got to stop. How many more times is the Times going to print this baloney that Warren lost because she is a women? Come on, America elected a black guy twice, its not sexism, its not racism. Of course Warren is qualified to be President - she is over 35 and born in America. By the way, the same qualifications as Trump. Warren had no chance of succeeding. Warren lost because she is a progressive who split that particularly small block of American voters with another leftist candidate who is better known, better financed and a better campaigner. That is it. Why does the Times continue to make excuses for her?
It interesting that voters have turned to Biden and Sanders. I find myself wondering why we failed to hear the fresher voices of Klobuchar and Warren offering new visions. Having worked with many qualified women in academics and business, I question when gender will cease looking at the gender and focus on the person--the best person-- for leadership. As a father of two daughters and a grandfather of one granddaughter, it was difficult for me to watch Klobuchar and Warren get shuffled off the campaign stage. There were other voices too that offered fresh visions. What it is that is in the nature of our politics that holds us back from really listening to and taking seriously the idea of a woman as president? Both Klobuchar and Warren have the “toughness” and vision the presidency requires. It is past time for healing and a time for vision of a people united regardless of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation. Biden can get that job done. But so could have Klobuchar and Warren. Together they would have made an outstanding team.
5
The most sacrosanct thing in a democracy is the right to vote. No person has an obligation to exercise that right in any particular way other than the way they see fit. That needs to be understood and accepted. It should be seen as nothing other than free choice.
2
The article makes clear that a woman can be -- and should be! -- our Commander in Chief. I agree wholeheartedly, and for that reason I offer a proposal that is small, but that I think would send a powerful message.
Every male in the U.S. is required to register with Selective Service, exposing himself to being conscripted into the military in the (very unlikely) event that there may be a draft in the future. Thus, since 1917 every U.S. adult male has on his 18th birthday been conditioned to believe that *because of his gender* he shares unequally in the burden of warfare. (Not every male relishes the idea of fighting, killing, and perhaps dying in a war, by the way. Some do, but many don't.)
Females are, by law, protected from -- or restricted from, depending on one's point of view -- sharing in this burden. Of course, there are many women who have had distinguished careers in the military, across the hierarchy (except as Commander in Chief!). And the law is increasingly recognizing that desire to join in -- in 2013, for example, the law was changed to allow women soldiers to engage in combat directly.
If all the male AND female members of Congress were to vote for a bill to change this gender-discriminatory law shielding women from military conscription, I think voters' minds would be better conditioned to be able to envision a woman as Commander in Chief, sending troops into harm's way.
Some day there will be a female president -- that's a fact. And fair is fair.
3
@David Agreed--but only if every politician in this country would be required by law to send his or her own children into whatever war is currently raging (and to be sent to war themselves, if they're of the appropriate age, whether or not they have bone spurs on their heels).
1
Not long ago, the NYT endorsed both Warren and Klobuchar. Even one of the best editorial board in the country cannot pick a winner. However, primaries are not a horse race as so much of the media promotes where we place our bet on the winner so that we can reap the benefits. I stayed true to voting for the best candidate. When a woman runs for office, it's like baring oneself and feeling vulnerable. Elizabeth's message will persist and I am so grateful to her for putting herself out there.
5
President Trump has demonstrated that the presidency no longer belongs in the hands of one person, male or female. If the founders of America were alive and starting fresh today, I simply cannot imagine they would conscience forming the government as it exists today, and exactly as it was originally structured. If they were to try, I would have to reject it with force. Unfortunately, sanctimonious, tribalistic misuse of power tends to characterizes most government leaders these days, save a few. The lack of clear vision and skill to think, speak and act like founders of a country they would recognize has been absent too long.
2
I both agree and disagree - Hillary Clinton still won the popular vote by 3 million people, but was definitely held to much higher standards than Trump. Frankly, the media coverage of Hillary Clinton was appalling. The reason why people question the electability of a women is because there is consistent media coverage about that topic, planting the seed of doubt in the minds of many voters who ultimately end up voting in their comfort zone. Additionally, the coverage of Hillary Clinton’s emails, including an article the NYT published right before the election, and James Comey’s announcement in March pushed a lot of swing voters towards trump or third party candidates.
A women is electable - and yes, women have to fight harder, but the media has to do a better job of explaining the reasons women are qualified instead of casting gender based doubt into the reasons they aren’t.
2
Politics aside, the American culture is curious. For all our efforts into heralding female achievements, there is a mix of patriarchy and conservative Christian beliefs that is part of what keeps a woman from being elected president. I don't believe it is even a conscious thought, but deeply ingrained in a large swath of our country. It is interesting that the Asian cultures which are also highly patriarchal have elected women in top political positions. Taiwan has a female president. South Korea have also had one. The difference is that those cultures are not steeped in Puritanical Christian beliefs that only men can be in positions of power and that women should only be supporting said men. We want to only focus on the politics of the woman running for office and finds reasons why she is not electable. But, maybe we need to look at our longstanding cultural views regarding women and power.
3
I worked enthusiastically for Hillary Clinton’s campaign because she was imminently qualified and I thought she’d make a great president. That she was a women was a bonus. She of course actually should be president, having handily won the popular vote.
My first favorite candidate was Kamala Harris, and my second was Amy Klobuchar, and not because they were women. Elizabeth Warren is another story. There are so many things I like about her, but she is a polarizing figure and was a bad risk in this very critical election. A lot of what bugs people about her are gender related criticisms—school marmy, hectoring—believe me, my friends and I have discussed this a lot. But I just can’t help it—I find her super annoying. I also find Bernie’s delivery super annoying. You don’t have to like everyone.
Let’s see who Sanders or Biden pick for a running mate. If they can pull this off, we may have our first woman president in 2024.
2
If a progressive is proposing better policies for the poorer or without healthcare, why isn’t he or she nominated by the Democratic Party?
As a newcomer, Warren was doing quite well. Remember that this is not the first time Bernie nor Biden is running. She should run again! Warren should be more concerned about her Senate seat being in jeopardy. Why did she lose her home state to Biden and Bernie? I'm more appalled when I look at the low numbers of women serving in U.S. Congress. Only 25 women (25%) serve in the U.S. Senate, and 101 women (23.2%) serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. Women should be at least 50%! We should ask ourselves what steps we could take to improve those low numbers.
2
@Sanne
If we momentarily use a crude stereotype of Republicans as traditional (and as side effect, somewhat sexist when it comes to the very highest leadership roles) then we would expect very few Republican women in Congress and about half of the Democrats as being women. This is about what we see.
So the problem in Congress is on the Republican side, and, to their credit, many Republicans acknowledge this. It does not mean there is an easy fix.
Identity and race-based politics are useful tools for disorienting people and confusing issues. Much like Reagan in the US, British PM Margaret Thatcher's policies targeted the poor and working people, vowing to cut benefits and reduce spending on public services. A process that continues. Thus, regardless of their gender, conservative/reactionary politicians can be equally ruthless. Like her counterpart Bernie Sander, Elizabeth Warren proposed some mildly progressive reforms, such as reducing student loan debt, fairer taxation, etc. That being said, Warren was no revolutionary, stating she is a "capitalist to my bones". She was also a strong backer of the Pentagon and Israel. She created problems for herself with her story about being fired from her teaching job because she was visibly pregnant. There is no question that gender and racial bias is alive and well in the US, and has been effectively exploited by our current President. That being said, successful politicians have to formulate a consistent message that gets beyond this. Indeed, who would have thought we would have an African American elected President in 2008?
Look, Clinton received enough votes to be the D candidate in 2016. It's not about if a woman is qualified to be president, it's about who the voters think can beat Trump this time around. It's that simple.
1
President Trump has demonstrated that the presidency no longer belongs in the hands of one person, male or female. If the founders of America were alive and starting fresh today, I simply cannot imagine they would conscience forming the government as it exists today, and exactly as it was originally structured. If they were to try, I would have to reject it with force. Unfortunately, sanctimonious, tribalistic misuse of power tends to characterizes most government leaders these days, save a few. The lack of clear vision and skill to think, speak and act like founders of a country they would recognize has been absent too long.
Is there any empirical data or actual evidence to support the hypothesis that voters are avoiding female presidential candidates due to the candidates’ being female? The scientific community constantly warns that correlation does not equal causation. Perhaps voters select candidates who appear to best represent the voters’ interests, regardless of the candidate’s sex, and it just so happens that those successful candidates have been men. You can say that the most qualified presidential candidates have been female and were not elected solely on account of being female. However, you do so without any actual evidence or data to support that claim. And, that claim, however accurate it may appear on the surface, may in reality be incorrect.
1
As far as the discrimination and misogyny is this country, it is so systemic, that I can't see the other side of it.
There are states that have recently filed legislation to stop the ratification of the ERA. Yes, it still hasn't been ratified. The Trump administration supports that and overturning Roe v. Wade.
How can a woman be President, but not have equal rights or control over her own body?
As far as Elizabeth Warren, she was riding high last summer/fall and the Dems organized a media campaign to stop her, which included President Obama and Hillary being interviewed the same days warning about sweeping plans, while other prominent Dems were endorsing Biden publicly (again, the same days).
Either Biden or Sanders have to put Warren on their ticket because Warren supporters, which are very diverse, don't have a real home unless one of them adds her as VP (not a cabinet position).
Women are fed up with being marginalized, minimized and sidelined.
3
Politics is about charisma, leadership and the ability to relate to the voters. This is the 21st century. Women are free to do whatever they want, and they are most voters (if I’m not mistaken). I’m a man and voted for Hilary in 2016. We need leaders that represent all and not their gender, sexual orientation and race groups. It’s true that women still facing resistance in certain industries (i.e. construction, sports such as soccer). But politics is not one them.
As a designer, I know that style initially matters more than the products. The way Ms. Warren branded and styled herself both in policy, speaking style and clothing was at odds with the larger electorate that she needed.
She always seemed out of breath; used the word fighting way too much; didn’t have a single policy focus for branding; jumped on Sanders M4A; lost people with the complex wealth tax instead of just fair taxation, and no reasonable immigration policy. I am a supporter of hers and I was frustrated.
Lastly, as an immigrant myself, all democrats should just quit talking about abolishing ICE and citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and rather talk about the need for legal immigration. Switch it to that we believe that granting undocumented immigrants temporary work permits would give congress and the INS the space and time to craft a comprehensive bill while we lift millions out of the shadow. Something like Obama did for the dreamers. What’s wrong with just work permits and not Green cards for a transition? Put the pressure on the GOP without looking like advocates for illegal entry.
1
Margaret Thatcher once said, "If you want anything said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman." In a culture that pays more attention to noise than substance, male candidates are going to have a sizable political advantage over women. (See the two biggest noisemakers, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.) How many Americans have heard of women CEOs of giant businesses like Irene Rosenfeld (Kraft Foods), Indra Nooyi (Pepsico), Ellen Kullman (DuPont) or Beth Mooney (Key Corporation)? And of course we know what happens to women who dare to raise their voice.
1
Just the nature of the animal. Bias is toward a decisive, charismatic silver back male, even if he dyes his mane. That is a "leader". He is confident and "tells it like it is". That is, he makes confident statements in a tone of voice that speaks absolute certainty. Culture and competing models sometimes hold sway. There is a grandmother/matriarch model that works to varying to degrees at times in various cultures. But that model hasn't made President yet here. Part of that is that we have an untreated religion problem in this country. Western Europe also recently had some very bad experiences with silver back males. They practically destroyed Europe back in twentieth century.
3
Presidential Requirements: Vision, Strategic plan, Policies, Tactical implementation plan. Of all the candidates, including the men, only Senator Warren provided all. So you are left with bias as the main reason she is no longer in the running.
Don't forget we would have had a female President four years ago, had the popular vote ruled and not the Electoral College. That is not a small detail.
The right female candidate simply did not come along this year for the Presidency. Look at States, counties, cities: huge numbers of women are, rightly, elected into top leadership positions now, and the right woman will be elected to the Presidency, as well.
1
Americans, especially the less-educated, don't believe in meritocracy when it comes to electing presidents or representatives. They would rather vote for a guy that they can have a beer with than elect someone that can understand complex issues and provide insightful answers.
Forget about difficult problems facing our country and the world, Biden and Trump are two guys that seem to be unable to answer even simple questions.
1
I think when the glass ceiling is finally broken, it will be with the political winds at her back, following an unpopular two term incumbent. She will have to be a relatively fresh face with whom the base can project whatever they like onto her. In short, she would have to encounter similar circumstances to Obama 2008.
Warren lost because her platform was bad.
1) Wealth tax -- insane proposal when there are many other ways to collect tax that are more efficient. So either she doesn't understand how the system works, or she does, and created it as a narrative so she can seem less insane than Bernie. In any case, most people saw through the scam.
2) Student Loan Forgiveness -- empty promise, and then, it is only impacting humanities majors without any skills, a small sliver of population, that at the end voted for her.
3) Break-up of Big Tech -- again, if she is suppose to be a law professor, she should know that unless she can demonstrate that Amazon is harming consumer, that is a non-starter. And as much as mom-and-pop stores hate Amazon for preventing their price racket, Amazon benefits consumers by providing cheap and efficient market to buy necessities. So, yes, government should consider how to regulate big tech, but breaking it up is loud not smart.
4) Medicare 4 ALL for Free -- well that even she conceded was insane.
Warren was a candidate with no realistic plans and that is why she lost.
Note, Hillary, was a much smarter, much more practical than Warren and that is why she won nomination.The only reason she lost was a statistical fluke in a couple of key states. Something that is unfortunate, but hardly evident that a woman is not electable.
A woman can be a president -- offer us a good platform.
Btw, what stops Warren from proposing her plans in Senate, isn't that her job?
Just to be clear up front, I, a 75 yr old man, voted for Amy Klobuchar in the CA primary. I will vote for Biden, but I still would have preferred Klobuchar or Harris if she were still running.
Nevertheless, name recognition is one of the major factors in presidential elections. The US Congress is a common source of candidates. Note that there is a total of about 115 women in Congress out of a total of 535 members, with similar disparities in other elective offices around the country.
The explosive growth of competent women in government is very, very encouraging to me. But in addition to the present gender statistics regarding women in elective office, note that it is very very common to elect older, supposedly more experienced, Presidents. So the gender statistics of 10 - 20 years ago may be more important.
I look at the sexist good old boys network that elected presidents like Trump and George Bush and wish for more women to reduce the likelihood of corruption and compassion for the average citizen rather than the riches of the 0.1%. But the change is not going to come overnight.
2
What is missing is a discussion about the role of the physical appearance of candidates and how that affects a person's perception of relative stature or capability. Rightly or wrongly, and this will almost certainly sound terribly misogynous to some (it isn't intended to be), especially coming from a set of XY chromosomes (i.e., a man), seeing mixed attire on candidates favors male candidates. Among the first things one notices, subtly and often unconsciously, with candidates standing side-by-side on a stage is bare legs (dresses/skirts) versus covered legs. Like it or not, it is an unconscious first-impression distinction, and with more than one candidate in a dress, differences in their legs can be distracting -- again, unconsciously. Pants for all (or dresses for all?) ensure that viewer focus is not distracted by color or shape of legs (calves -- fat or thin? Dark or light?) Among all of our senses, sight is almost always the first one that comes into play when drawing distinctions about what is in our field of view. And those distinctions can either hurt or help candidates.
We don't have nearly enough women in politics and leadership positions. It's slowly getting better. We just need to work on ensuring that some elements of the competition arena don't detract from their parity with, or superiority to, other candidates,whether across genders or within gender.
1
100 years after America's misogynists reluctantly gave American women the right to vote, America's cruel Christian patriarchs are still busy in 2020 regulating women's bodies and disparaging their character because of their gender.
"Nevertheless, she persisted", said Senator Mitch McConnell two years when complaining about the magnanimous Senator Warrenwhen she was objecting to nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General because of Sessions' shameful civil rights history toward Alabama's black citizens.
Elizabeth Warren is as good as it gets with public servants.
America's radical patriarchal right is a medieval misogynistic disgrace.
America needs a lot more women in elected office.
And this man will gladly be voting them into office.
Persist, ladies !
10
@Socrates
As usual, it’s a pleasure to read your responses, which generally shape and elevate discussions.
My greatest concern with governments (most nations these days) is they are fast becoming antiquated by technology. In my opinion, we don’t need a Democratic or Republican candidate as much as we need a couple of tools to elevate discussions of constitutional change beyond the hands of Congress. If there really is a 99%, the laws of nature could easily form a platform to find acceptable resolutions to basic foundational questions of the day. If we’re to be a nation of laws reflecting the will of the people by which we agree to be governed, there’s much to improve.
3
How is it that 60 other countries can elect a female head of state but not the US? In Clinton and Warren we had the most qualified and most knowledgable candidates to run only to lose.
One thing is for sure, Biden owes it to black America when he picks a running mate. It should be Stacy Abrams, not Kamala Harris or Val Demings.
3
Ridiculous. It was always going to be a man, and it was always going to be Biden.
The DNC does the R’s work for them. As Gore Vidal said “The left and right wing of the Money Party.”
4
Because there’s still a lot of intellectually deprived misogynistic men and women (surprise surprise) out there?
1
Because women don't vote for them in the primaries
2
Here's a thought. Maybe you should nominate a woman whose appeal isn't limited to a fairly small portion of the woke professional class.
5
There will be a lot of handwringing as to why once again a woman can't be POTUS....
Well, we need to look no further than Bernie Sanders.
1] Had Bernie not divided the Dem party with his one-note, divisive and nonsensical politics in 2016, HRC would have been POTUS and there would be ONLY 3 token conservatives, heading to 2, on the SCOTUS.
2] Dems in 2020 way have been more likely to take a risk with nominating a woman; better yet, they would not need to take a risk, HRC would be POTUS.....etc.... a risk they are unprepared to take this yr.
3] In 2016, tens of thousand of Bernie supporters WENT to the polls in key states and did not vote for HRC, or any candidate, and there is no telling how many didn't go at all or voted for DJT.
Bernie Sanders has inflicted unmeasurable damage to the Dem party, which I think is his and 30% of his fanatics goal.
No Bernie; HRC is in the WH.
So Bernie is the reason why we don't have a woman POTUS.
Bernie is a catastrophe.
"Enlightened times will enlighten only a small number of honest people, the vulgar masses will always be fanatics.”
Voltaire
5
Please don't forget the United States DID vote for a woman for president!!!!! Hillary Clinton won the popular but the outdated
electoral college prevented her from claiming the White House.
Do not forget she won more votes that Trump...
The electoral college needs to go.
5
I'm hoping that Biden picks a woman and/minority as VP.
Perhaps Stacey E. Plaskett, a non-voting House member from the VI, a US Territory.
She was hit with organized smear campaigns and defamatory press reports, and won re-election.
2
Any woman who grew up watching the handsome, football-playing class doofus (male) win the election for high school class president--while his brighter, full-of -deas classmate, (female) had to settle for class secretary, has seen this script all her life-long. A majority of Americans--women *are* the majority--are sick at the missed chances of our gender to use their talents and shine. Sick of the waste. Sick of the frustration, the lowered wages, the loss of all those wonderful ideas, the disrespect.
There're are several reasons for the terrible sexism of this country, but here's the one that can be presently solved: we need more role models at the top. We need to put someone on the ramp to the top, where all America can watch her be trained. Maybe we'll need to do it several times to finally prove that, by God, there are qualified women in this country--lots of them--who would make superb Commanders in Chief.
So for now, let's set our anger and frustration aside. If you are a woman, if you are a man who loves his wife or daughter or friend, if you just love fairness and equality for all, then Call both Sanders and Biden! Call your Democratic senators and congressmen, write to the NYT, and say: we *must* have a woman VP this time. In this race.
And don't tell me you can't find one good enough to do the job. Put a woman on the ramp to the top and help her get the job-training she needs. Give us a woman VP!
2
Warren had a tough road. She had to answer questions that no man was asked. The pundit class like Matthews are terrible interviewers.
- She faced more detailed questions and criticisms on her plans ie Healthcare... which she answered
- She was asked questions about social issues which men were asked less about. She had the burden of every segment of society... which she wore beautifully
- She has to know more about more topics than anyone else... which she did
- She has to represent an entire gender... and carry its agenda... and she inspired.
- She has to carry baggage of social etiquette... can a woman talk tough... or not speak too much... she met the delicate balance.
- She had to talk in detail about every value she held... which are American values.
- She has to take stands in all these areas... envisioning a future that she had to pull people to... and you could see the possibilities.
BUT, having to answer to each one of these areas is guaranteed to inspire many, but push others away. It chips away from the vote count.
Meanwhile, the males run on simplistic platforms, essentially their brands. And Trump has them down... “socialist” and “sleepy” are true at their core.
The Dems chose the wrong “horse.” Warren would have eviscerated and “scalped” Trump.
3
Warren was never going to beat Trump.
All I want is that Maniac on the Potomac and his henchmen GONE. Any adult with a fully functioning brain would okay for me (I do like Warren), but if it takes two white, old Boomer guys to oust Twitter in Chief, so be it.
2
@Ford313 I don't think Biden will either. He is too safe. Trump will wipe the floor with him.
The fact that the DNC threw its weight behind an old white man who is so senile he mistook his wife for his sister the other night rather than a overly competent woman tells us everything we need to know about how low the bar is for (white) men and high it is for women. The comments here saying Warren just wasn't "good enough" only solidifies the misogyny.
4
The worst part of all of this is that Trump will dump Pence, enlist Nikki Haley as his VP and probably win in November .
1
Elizabeth Warren's withdrawal, and the Times story yesterday that American women's unpaid labor is worth $1.5 trillion/year, led me to this response:
WORTH
In front of the bright lights
You carry a lifetime of learning
Lightly – for you it must be lightly
When you try, you are given nothing
When you succeed, you earn – fear
In the dark silent hours
Your cool hand comforting the feverish child
Your words calming the confused grandfather
What you have to give is taken
What is demanded of you is – more
Visible, invisible, there is no place of safety
To be loved, be silent
To be listened to, be quiet
When you ask, the answer is no
When you do not ask, there is no answer
In front of the lights, in the dark hours
Hold fast to your worth
Someday, rocks will crack
Someday, a wave will rise
Someday. Someday. Someday.
3
I know many men who voted for Hillary and Elizabeth. Come on women. If there were never a male President, "all" us pigheaded men would have voted for a man with the credentials of those 2 women.
Warren had great proposals, but she was a liar. She did not strike me as genuine or trustworthy. Case in point, her lies about Sanders and her heritage, as well as her failure to immediately endorse Sanders. If she really is a progressive, she should endorse him already. Finally, advocating for a woman to be President for the sake of electing a woman is sexism.
2
Nobody can blame men if the female candidates made critical mistakes and also white people (men and female) if black candidates (male and female) were so poor of ideas
Going by your premise that sexism is the reason for Warren’s loss, you should accept that Democrats are sexist and stop labeling Republicans as anti-woman. It’s Democratic primary, after all!
Using the same logic, the Democrats are also racist since all minority candidates lost primaries!
Do you see a problem with this line of analysis?
Women have been heads of state/ government in the nations with the most Muslims- Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.
Except for America women have been heads of government/ state in the nations with the most English cultural and language heritage people- Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
Women have been heads of government/ state in the most populous South American and European nations - Brazil and Germany..
Women have been heads of state/government in the African nations Liberia and Malawi. A woman has been head of state/ government in Ireland, Israel and Sri Lanka.
The American Founding Fathers only intended and meant to create a constitutional republic where only men like themselves who owned property including enslaved black Africans and the lands and natural resources stolen from free brown Indigenous humans were divinely naturally created equal persons with certain unalienable rights.
Unless and until there is an Equal Rights Amendment, women in America will always be separate and unequal under the Constitution of our republic. Misogyny and patriarchy will reign and rule in America.
3
"Shrill", "angry", "school marm", "scolding", "know-it-all".
Any woman who has ever excelled has heard it all.
Has a lot less to do with sex than some would wish, folks, but that's what grabs the headlines and gets the articles written.
Put up a reasonable leader (man or woman), and they will get elected. Put up "outsiders", firebrands (what exactly is that?), and those who want to burn the place down to see it reborn in their wacky vision, and you will get zero. It's that simple.
1
Speaking just for myself, I would blame Hilary Clinton for the failure of women this time around. She ran a miserable campaign in every respect, and her poor performance will plague women in the Democratic Party for years to come.
1
There still is a woman running for president. She will not be able to get enough delegates to win on the first ballot, but she could get enough delegates to prevent one of those two old white guys from winning on the first ballot. After that, all bets are off, and who knows what might happen.
Take another look at Tulsi Gabbard, Democrats. She is eminently qualified and might defeat you know who.
For the only reason anyone is elected. Enough electoral votes. Duh.
NY hasn't voted yet, so I've had no hand in the present state of the campaigns. Look: it's not over. Either or both of the old men (younger than me, though) might drop out or drop dead. But I favored Warren right up to the last debate. Colbert's show has a video thing of the candidates---it shows Warren head-butting Bloomberg. Thing is, head-butting needs special attention: while she "knocked" Bloomberg out, she also knocked herself out. This was a time to show leadership, a capacity for healing, a sense of the many interlocking needs of America. Yet Warren painted Bloomberg as a bigger threat than Trump! Incredible!! And she kept it up for days! I've had enough of divisive hate-filled speech! I want the less toxic candidate to win, to gain a beech-head for a Democratic Senate; and in Whoopi Goldberg's phrase: to turn the lights on. I wish Warren well, and a speedy return to politics.
2
Warren finished third in her "home" state.
End of story.
Herstory.
3
If women united as a cohesive voting bloc, they'd be unstoppable.
1
let's be honest, neither Warren or Klobuchar were very completing candidates. I don't think it has anything to do with their sex.
Are we collectively forgetting that the past two democratic nominees were...Not white men?
3
One of the hardest part about this is hearing the whining of losers.
The democratic voters who “rejected” by voting for their preferred candidate were mostly women. And in South Carolina women of color. To use a favored malpractice diagnosis.
But go on telling a fairy tale about men against women. Which is really a story about little princesses who demand obedient servants.
And forget there is one queen that could have won but wants nothing to do with the game. One Michelle.
2
Also see https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/the-likability-trap-women-politics.html
and the book of the same name “The Likability Trap”. It’s real.
1
This election is a lame duck election. Whoever wins will be too old to be considered in 4 years (or in the case of T constitutionally disqualified). We need to start looking down the road for a non-elderly person to become the face of each party.
Why? Because a whiner and perpetual “ poor me” complainer such as Warren eventually turns voters off is why! Hillary wasn’t much better, but we did vote for her.
1
Acting like a victim reinforces that you aren't a leader.
2
So grateful for Emily's list. We send money and they make sure female's get support in politics. Keep up the good work because we believe in you.
Every day in every way the Trump Administration shows us a new, deeper level of incompetence and ignorance. We must purge, remove, and ban him. his family, his criminal associates and Illegal members of his administration and begin to heal and prevent a repeat of this episode.
Qualified to be president? Who? Hillary Clinton? Crooked as a snake, dishonest, more baggage than Louis Vuitton. Against all things protected by the Bill of Rights.
Elizabeth Warren? Pocahontas?
Amy Klobuchar? A senator and a former prosecutor?
The only Democrat female for whom I might have considered voting is Tulsi Gabbard, and she has been given short shrift by the DNC.
I did not vote for President Trump in 2016 because I did not trust him. I will be voting for him in 2020.
2
I object to the implication that Democrats are not ready to embrace a highly qualified woman as President, because they chose by the millions not to support Elizabeth Warren. Talk about short memories! Democrats DID nominate a highly qualified woman for President just a few years ago, Hillary Clinton. I myself regarded Hillary as one of the most outstanding public officials of my lifetime and voted for her every time she ran for public office. Senator Warren? Not so much.
Relax. Joe Biden will bring in a woman Vice President with him and that woman will run to succeed him as President in 2024.
1
Fundamental misunderstanding: Qualifications = Presidency. Obviously, one has nothing to do with the other. Have any of our last four or five presidents been qualified? There must be at least fifty thousand Americans who are "qualified" but probably none of them will ever be President. Presidents are elected based on a lot of things (confidence, empathy, enthusiasm, promises, perceived leadership ability) but hardly ever, I think, on an evaluation of their "qualifications". The author's point (I think, it's hard to tell) is to ask why a woman hasn't been elected as President yet. However, an argument about qualifications doesn't move the discussion forward. Incidentally, I personally think that both Biden (the next Democrat nominee) and Trump will select a woman vice-president nominee and that a woman will be the next president after their terms (probably four years for either one) are completed. So, 2024 will see our first woman president-elect.
1
It is the candidate’s job - their ONLY job - to determine what the greatest number of voters wants (taking into account our weird electoral college system, but that’s another conversation) and how to convince that voter to pick them. Let’s stop blaming every failure on some unfairness or third party fault. Senator Warren brought a lot to the table but she also presented as a candidate who was calculating every statement to get the best result. I don’t want to be worked, much less be fully aware that I’m being worked. Senator Warren and the dozen plus other candidates who withdrew (men and women) is not a candidate because she couldn’t close the deal. It’s that simple.
1
History tells us something about women elected to high office in major democracies. Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi and Margret Thacher won elections as mainstream, somewhat conservative, establishment candidates. Their message was not about gender but about the issues facing the country as a whole. I believe a women will be elected president in the next decade. Unfortunately, the candidate that the country may elect will more likely come from the Republican Party.
4
I am a woman political. My mother was born the year women got the vote. I started high school the year Title IX gave girls a chance to compete fairly in school athletics, an important early training ground for ALL competition. It is indeed my greatest hope that I will see a woman in the White House in my lifetime. Given the damage that Trump has already done to our republic and the very character of our nation, the stakes this time around are just so high. I feel that surrendering my feminist hopes and dreams in the 2020 election is an act of patriotism. I want a Democratic candidate to whom no one but the most die-hard Republican can object on the basis of party fealty alone. Women (and all the men who love them) stand to lose so much much if Trump gets another 4 years— far more than the pain of a dream deferred.
3
Please stop with the "woman versus man" thing. She was not a good candidate. She whined. She attacked when there was not a need to do so. She showed herself to be completely "unpresidential." She changed her position on issues (M'care for all) to suit the trend. This is not about whether she was a woman or a man; it is about whether she was good candidate. She was not.
9
If women truly want to see a woman as president, why did 53% of white women vote for Trump? Why didn’t Hillary endorse Warren? Did Pelosi do anything behind the scenes to support Warren or does she enjoy being the only woman in the center of power? Women should strongly support other women before pointing to misogyny as the reason female politicians don’t make it to the top.
1
I am angry at the women in the Democratic Party. They backed a well-qualified but flawed candidate--- twice in two previous presidential elections but with, not one but several, well-qualified candidate who were women, who did a great many Democratic women vote for in the current presidential election--- an old white man. Chris Hayes sort of blamed this on men. It's not the Democratic men. Democratic women are a majority voting block. If women are serious about electing a women for president, they have the numbers to do just that with a large number of men, who want a women president, voting with them. Rather we get excuses, justification for why many Democratic women voted for another old white man.
Want a woman president? Run a Republican woman.
Somehow I don't think that will work for the people insisting that we need a woman above all else
2
There are no Republican women, only females who are enslaved by their sons and husbands.
If Elizabeth Warren's first name were Warren, she would be the front-runner in the race to secure the Democratic nomination. In fact, she would have left all the "B" candidates (Bernie, Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg) in the dust on Super Tuesday.
3
If qualifications determined who a president would be Adlai Stevenson would have been president for two terms. A candidate has to appeal to voters on an emotional level either to be president or to remove a disliked president. This year the emotion is to get rid of Trump.
3
Wrong question. "A" woman should never be president because she is a woman. That is the way you lose--because it indicates, strongly, that your top priority is to see ANY woman and No man in the presidency. This, hopefully, will never be what decides who holds the highest office in the land.
Millions of us men voted to elect Hillary Clinton, and nearly succeeded. But a majority of women refused to vote for her. The fact that she was a woman was nowhere on my list of reasons for supporting her.
Are men the only ones capable of sexism? What about female rivalry and self-hatred? Why aren't you addressing that?
3
The pundit class still fetishizes the "best and the brightest," men and women alike from the Ivies, while the boomers say "you mean the crew that got us into Vietnam? Thanks, but no."
2
When Trump ditches Pence for a woman, probably Nikki Haley, Biden or Sanders MUST put a woman VP on the ticket or lose to Trump. They must trump Trump.
3
@Tom
Sure, do you forget how Palin lost it for McCain?
1
Statistically, women are less likely to be the kind of narcissist who wants to be president.
Although, ironically, it was the emergence of Sarah Palin and her unjustified self-confidence that really made that clear.
2
Every poll shows that most folks don't care about the sex of a candidate.
And those who purport to care passionately never miss an opportunity to demonstrate that care more about socialism than sex.
Likely, every single leftist NJ resident who whines about the lack of women in office, when offered the opportunity to elect a truly well-qualified woman as Governor, voted for the straight, white, male, gazillionaire socialist. Because Republican women don't count. (Just like "white" women, and married women, who persist on voting for Republicans.)
No, the group seeking the presidency was NOT "diverse"; they were all arrayed on the left -- sometimes the spectacularly hard left -- of the ideological spectrum.
While the left obsesses about "identity", it is, first and foremost, socialist. When women "of color" - Mia Love, Young Kim - run as Republicans, "women" abandoned them in droves. If Nikki Haley or Susan Martinez were the GOP candidate against a Dem, Warren and Harris would not be lamenting that electing a Democratic man would force "little girls to wait" or the lack of "a woman as our commander in chief."
"Diversity" only matters as an intramural concern among socialists: leftists want to see socialists of all races, ethnicities, and of both (or, perhaps, all) sexes. Sex is only important when a socialist woman runs against a Republican man. When the sexes are reversed, to concern vanishes.
The English word for that is hypocrisy.
1
Here let’s try this version:
If you think we need a man candidate because it's time we had a man, you are sexist. Period. You are advocating that a man needs to be the candidate on the basis of sex. That's the classic definition of sexism. If you are advocating a certain individual man needs to be the candidate because he is "the best" candidate and you would still advocate for the person if he was a woman, then that's ok. Because you are advocating for someone based on ability, not sex. People need to come to terms with their sexism, both men and women. Women have been put on notice recently but men need to understand that saying we need to have more men doing this or that, just because they are men is just as sexist as women have been over the years. We all need to get over recognizing sex and recognize ability and achievement. Sex should be blind. Continuing to highlight sex, just as we do race, has the opposite effect of what we really should be striving for.
Ideology in the U.S. blamed the individual.
If a black man is in in jail or Latino folks are poor - it is because of personal decisions. We never blame the system and culture warped by centuries of propaganda from the over-privileged.
The data unambiguously support the conclusion that the electorate is deeply misogynistic.
Sadly, men claim to be rational and quantitative, but the comments here and elsewhere show no objectivity or balance, just a tired reiteration of "picking the speck from your neighbors eye, while ignoring the log" in the eyes of the ancient patriarchs.
This is how ideology functions in our culture.
Sure, Elizabeth Warren made mistakes. This is the same thing people (in hindsight) say about HRC's campaign. But to everyone who writes on here that she didn't lose because of sexism but because of missteps, tell me: are the male candidates running perfect campaigns? Are you inferring that other candidates made NO mistakes? Can you not see that women are held to different standards?
A particularly common thread is how she botched M4A. Botched it? She was reluctant to talk about costs, like every other politician who has run in my lifetime. The difference is she at least finally released it. Bernie didn't, and still has not. But he gets a pass, indeed is a front runner in some places.
That is sexism.
Yes. Trump ran a perfect campaign. Evidence ? He is called President Trump.
@Myasara
Replying to my own comment here because I plagiarized someone else's from another thread who puts it better and more succinctly than I:
But to ignore the fact that any missteps were magnified and pounced upon in a way that doesn't happen to male candidates is a function of bias. NONE of these men or women have run perfect campaigns. None of the women were given a pass for any of it, and the men have been able to skate by because we internalize latent sexism in insidious ways.
To me, Warren's charges of sexism as an excuse for her failure are indicative of the character flaws that sank her campaign.
2
Women are the majority of voters.
Women are the majority of employed Americans.
In a democracy, that puts women in charge.
So if women don't choose women, it's hard to blame sexism.
2
The answer is so simple. You don't need any qualifications to be president of the United States or a member of Congress or the Senate. You just have to be a poster child for corporate America. Anyone can see, "We have the best government money can buy." The whole system is rotten.
1
This talk will end in 2024 with Nikki Haley election. Fitting that party of Lincoln will elect first woman.
4
If Sanders, Biden or Trump choose a woman as their running mate, America may not have to wait another four years for its first woman president. Bernie and Joe are outspoken members of the Silent Generation. If elected, Sanders would be 79 when he becomes president while Joe Biden, if elected, would be 78. Statistics show that 28.86% of 79-year-olds die with five years while 26.41 of 78-year-old die within five years. Sanders is recovering from a heart attack and Biden has a history of brain aneurysm.
Trump is a 73-year-old Baby Boomer. Statistics show that 17.06% of 73-year-olds die within five years. Trump suffers from bone spurs and conspiracy theories. So there is about a one-in-four chance that a woman who becomes vice president in 2021 could become president before 2025.
https://www.finder.com/life-insurance/odds-of-dying
1
I liked Harris but Dems can't be a prosecutor. I never got to know Gabbard but for some reason Hillary didn't like her and the media dropped her maybe because us vets are not supposed to be liberal or we had our quota of Hawaiians. I liked Warren but Hillary has already been the Secretary of State. At least with Harris I could envision a looming Trump getting turned on and called out as a female dog who whimpers back to his corner. I loved Amy's humor but can't remember where she stood on health care. At least I am confident she would be alive for a second term. What's wrong with considering gender or race or religion... do we pretend these characteristics don't influence perceptions and decisions. Another old, frankly, very old white guy. Oh well, we will survive. How about Amazon's ex, she seemed smart and put him out where Bill probably wanted to be. We could also wait for AOC to grow up.
Does no one remember that Hillary Clinton was the nominee last time? What on earth are these people talking about?
2
Let's have some perspective. Hillary was the Democratic nominee in 2016. In 2008, Hillary was one of the 2 finalists. The last white male nominated by the Dems was John Kerry.
Identify politics is not productive. Are we really going to complain every year about all of the demographic characteristics that are absent from the nominee? We can lament about the fact that he/she is not Latino, Asian, gay, trans, etc. What a waste of time!
4
The only way a woman will be elected president is for that woman to run for president. And if that woman does not win, the proper conclusion to draw is "that woman did not win the election," not "America hates women."
2
We have good women that could do the job, but Warren wasn't one of them.
She showed her hand when Trump manipulated her by calling her by the native American name that he calls her and then she went out and to a DNA test. She had nothing to prove but Trump played her.
It's to bad that Condoleezza Rice is a republican, she would make a great candidate and a better president then Trump.
Men believe women are capable of leading this country. It is women who do not have confidence in themselves. The #MeToo movement helps but not enough. Before dropping out, we have very competent women and any one of them would have been a good President than the three men still in the race that include Trump.
I think her weakest point was the way she chose to speak about things. I got tired of hearing “I have a plan for that”! It meant nothing to me. I got tired of hearing about “babies” all the time and her “daddy” and the discrimination when she was pregnant. Her selfies were nice for the people who got the pictures but I thought they represented a kind of silliness. As was her pinky promise. I don’t get it, she’s a very bright woman but the way she chose to conduct her campaign, her stump speech more or less was rather shallow, and I hate to use the word “cutesy“. Too bad. She did pretty well when she got serious. But the rest of it was a turn off.
If all the women in the country voted there would not be another man in office, they exceed men by at least 4% in numbers.
To quote the article, “Since Donald J. Trump won the presidency, women’s rage has fueled the Democratic Party.”
How silly; women’s “rage” has nothing to do with it. In fact, mentioning “women’s rage” is rather sexist, and brings to mind PMS, hormonal mood changes, menopausal derangement, all those things women often say don’t exist or don’t disqualify them from having their fingers on the nuclear trigger if elected President. And how about those endless images of women weeping when Hillary lost in 2016?
It would have been more useful and explanatory to have an article based on voter interviews that dispassionately analyzes why the female candidates did not succeed in making it to the final round this time.
Of course some women are able and qualified to be President; the critical question to be answered is why voters (including many women) do not vote for them.
Hillary set female leadership back 10 years with her pious posturing. She is known as the candidate that couldn’t beat Trump.
1
Because deep down, everyone know that a man is more qualified to be a leader.
1
Hillary Clinton was the candidate of the democrats in 2016 - that settles the “sexism” claim. Elections are these days really more about “likability” of the candidates than their gender. The candidacy for President is in most part a media show and Senator Warren is simply not “entertaining”. You would be surprised how much success a professional show star like Oprah would have in politics...even without presenting any solid program. That was how Donald Trump was elected - the seasoned reality show host. He had no program and no clue to start with and got the votes because he is “The apprentice”......
1
Hilary did not lose in 2016 because she is a woman (or Putin). She lost because she was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign. Everything was set up for her. The Democratic Party. The Liberal news media. An absurd Republican opponent. It was her election to lose....and she did. There was nothing special about this field of female candidates. Maybe next time.
1
Elizabeth Warren lost because of her platform. Oh, and she is a serial liar. She lied about her ethnicity; she lied about her discussion with Sanders. HRC lost because of poor decisions made prior to her entering the race (private email server, speaking to bankers for huge fees) and her inability to articulate a reason (a slogan) of why she wanted to be President. I read this article and it has the same feel of the "Looky at her why she is an accomplished [Fill in the blanks: CEO, Astrophysicist, Astronaut whatever} and she is (wonders of wonder) A WOMAN." Which is just about as condescending and pandering towards women as one can be. How about "this candidate lost" because of [Fill in the blank: policies, track record, lack of trustworthiness or just bad campaigning]. My guess is Michelle Obama would win handily in an election for POTUS. Not because of her gender but because a vast majority of Americans admire her.
1
An important reason is because she acts overly optimistic and overconfident. That's what Hillary did. That's what Kamala Harris did. That's what Elizabeth Warren did. And Tulsi Gabbard hasn't yet quit the race. Such things turn people off.
If you remember, at the marathon Benghazi hearings, in the beginning Mrs. Clinton was strikingly arrogant, which evoked resentment in (Republican) lawmakers. Then at second or last time, on a day-long 9 or 10-hr hearing, she was cool, non-arrogant, measured but "optimally" self-confident. The law-makers finally appeared "beaten."
Kamala Harris often appeared ecstatic, for no apparent reason. Once when a reporter mentioned, "IF you become president," she corrected them saying "WHEN," not "if."
Elizabeth Warren tended to be arrogant, was overly critical of other candidates, her retort to John Delaney once stunned him, which probably was the last of his candidacy. She butchered Mike Bloomberg.
When Barack Obama was facing his opponents, he appeared confident but not condescending. He even told Mrs. Clinton, "You 'scolded' me for it;" he never insulted her.
These are some of the reasons why women candidates don't succeed, not necessarily because they're just women.
If I could say so, never lose your "femininity," which is your strength, not weakness, while maintaining your (optimum) self-confidence; without self-confidence, you can't achieve anything. Such a balancing act is hard. Men don't have that problem.
1
The female candidates need to fire whoever is giving them public speaking advice. The Hillary influenced “speak slowly with abnormal annunciations in a loud voice” doesn’t connect them to their constituency. Elizabeth Warren and a number of the other candidates also displayed this style.
The good news is that these articles about woman candidates will disappear in a few more days. It wasn't that a woman couldn't get the nomination of a major party and then be a great President. It was that a woman like Warren would never beat Donald Trump. Trump is like the untalented oaf who fouls you in a pickup basketball game and then complains that you fouled him. 80 to 90% of primary voters knew that and decided that Warren was a bad choice. Instead of looking for some profound truth in the demise of Warren's terrible campaign, maybe everyone should focus on why she failed as as an individual, not as some representative of her gender.
My fear is that the first woman president will be a Republican. Republicans will vote for anyone the party sees as a winner, they don't overthink it like the Democrats. While I believe it's time for a woman in the White House, I don't want a Republican woman there anymore than I want a Republican man there. So, be careful, people, for what you wish for. We want the best Democrat in the White House, regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation. That said, I hope our nominee chooses a woman for VP because with the right person on the ticket we have a better chance of winning with a woman. And don't put it past Trump to get rid of Pence and put in Nikki Hayley, just to get out goat.
1
How is it that in 2016 and again in 2020 the most qualified candidate - a woman - is denied the Presidency!
This article is another mindless appeal to identity politics. Warren has only herself to blame. Many of us on the left welcomed the idea of Sanders and Warren as the two leading front runners. Amy and Pete demonstrated in early states there was certainly enough room for two ideologically similar candidates to occupy top positioning.
Warren's downfall was her politics and her character. Americans are sick of candidates making appeals to 'realism,' 'pragmatism' etc. These are the calling cards of compromised candidates (on the take) like Obama that will inevitably not fight for anything they promise. Warren's backing away from Medicare-For-All by showing us a plan that imagined she could pass something in her 3rd year in office (when the popularity of any president would be too low to pass landmark legislation) exposed her lack of trustworthiness. Her numbers then took a hit but her real downfall came when she - instead of correcting course and doing something to reinvigorate trust - smeared someone to her left as a sexist, all but ending her chances.
Weaponizing gender for cheap political gain gives cover to every conservative that tells the public not to believe women accusing the president of sexual misconduct. When you talk about 'big structural change' and show no courage to go after the establishment candidate, the chief antagonist to your financial overhauls, your candidacy deserves the embarrassment of 4th and 5th place finishes. It wasn't sexism - it was cowardice.
As long as women play the gender card - blame misogyny - they will and should lose. Warren did big time with Bernie and that’s when and why she lost, because of her own character flaw. Identity politics is gross and people have had enough. That accounts for kamala’s demise as well.
1
I liked Warren’s ideas a lot, but she’s been caught in too many lies. I couldn’t vote for her.
@jennifer
What lies? No lies Certainly not more than 15,000 lies - that’s trumps running total
Without affirmative action in an election it is clear that calling the minority candidates "qualified" is a big joke. They got jobs and places in colleges based on sex and are not very good. Whether it is Harris, Warren or Klobachar they are not very special. The truth is that they are weak candidates and no where near qualified to lead a great country - just like Hillary. Being married to a man that cheats on her on a daily basis for decades did not make Hillary anything but a fool. She killed millions as secretary of state. She and the women in today's race just aren't good enough and the voters saw than. Being qualified is not the test. Being the best is what it takes to win. These women are far less than the best.
1
In 2016 we learned how deplorable a large segment of the voting population is. 63 million people, including a majority of white women (52%) voted for a misogynist. After Trumps acquittal on impeachment charges his popularity ROSE to 49%! Maybe it shouldn’t be such a surprise that a good portion of Democratic voters won’t support a woman.
Why is this country so conservative? And believes in the nonsense spewing forth from Trump, Fox News, and the entire Republican Party?
The Republican Party, with its complete failure to deal with climate change, and its grossly incompetent response to the Coronavirus, is literally become the Death Party.
The women have not been all that compelling to this woman.
Out of all the lazy click bait political narratives I've seen throughout the campaign - "The female candidates lost this because of sexism" is tough to beat.
Has everyone forgotten that Hilary Clinton beat out several very qualified white men (including Joe Biden) to finish second in 2008 and then beat out several qualified men (including Bernie Sanders) in 2016 and then won the popular vote against another man (Donald Trump)?
1
Wow, this explains just how out of touch the Woke public is.
As I look at the situation--the most powerful Democratic politician in Washington is a woman. (Nancy Pelosi).
The last nominee for the presidency was a woman (Hillary Clinton).
The prior nominee for the presidency, twice, was a black man. (Barack Obama).
And that translates into the default being white men, how?
3
Make no mistake - Warren would have destroyed Trump.
1
I'm completely sure the first woman president will be a Republican.
women didn't support her, working class people didn't support her, students, african americans, hispanics didn't support her. very sad. her policies and her ability to get things done would have made drastic changes for the better in people's lives. instead the democrats are going to be represented by two old white guys; either by a guy who wants to turn back the clock or a guy who won't get anything done. was it because the messenger was a woman. i guess so. can't people react to substance. aren't they willing to dig in and learn about something so important in our lives. we get the govt and leaders we deserve.
Did she completely forget , Hillary won the last election?
Today Finland seems hundreds of years away.
If Dems stop feigning victimhood at every turn, if they stop blaming their lack of success on misogyny or racism, they might actually succeed. Democrat voters (including women) know that they didn't vote for Elizabeth Warren not because of misogyny, but because she is utterly and completely inauthentic. Above all else, more than policy or party, Americans don't like pandering posers, and they especially detest those who calculate their ascension by fabricating victim status for personal gain. Warren lied about being Native American not in a benign way (say, a chapter in an autobiography), but on a job application because she knew Harvard was looking for diverse professors. She lied about being fired for being pregnant in order to position herself as the righteous and rightful candidate to lead the charge against the patriarchy. In a cringeworthy attempt to be liked by millennials, she awkwardly chugged a beer on Instagram. And in the most cloying and defining moment of her campaign, in an effort to out-woke her rivals, she said she'd put a nine year old trans boy in charge of choosing her Secretary of Education. That was the final straw and voters said they'd had enough.
76
@HW This might be the most perfectly made summary as to why Warren lost. Since I can only give you one upvote, the other million will have to be figurative. :-)
7
@HW HW, can we grow up and call political parties by their proper name? One would not say 'Republic voters', so why say 'Democrat voters'?
5
@HW And what then did Klobuchar do wrong? Kamala Harris? Gillibrand? All experienced, capable women. But we know this already. This country has a serious problem with misogyny.
9
I don’t think this election is about gender. For many, it’s about removing Trump from office. Man or woman, straight or gay, black or white, whoever can win in November has my and many others’ votes.
Remember, Hillary won the popular vote last time. It was through some quirk of the electoral college that she didn’t become president but more people voted for her than Mr. Trump.
7
Or keeping him there, in my case. I’m eager for his next term and hopefully Pence will follow him.
I went into my medical career naively thinking I would be treated equally among men. I never thought of myself as a feminist as I was raised by my dad and two older brothers. There is still a pervasive bias among the older, white male baby boomer generation that does not yet fully accept women as equal. It is a generational issue that is not entirely their fault. I do not think that this election is going to be the right one for a female to take on a white, male baby boomer who has a strong economy and increasing employment. As idealistic as I may be, I think that most Americans care about their wallets. Personally, based upon my own experiences as a woman in leadership in a career formally dominated by men, a woman candidate is going to have to be stoic yet assertive; any evidence of emotion, aggression, anger, or vulnerability will be used against her. Maybe my daughter’s generation will be able to put these past biases behind them. I having been reading Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s biography which reminds me how far we have come since my mother’s time. For that I am very grateful and hopeful that we will continue to progress forward rather than backward. Hopefully, with time and patience and hard work, we will have a woman president not because she is female but because she is nationally recognized as the most qualified.
4
Change is incremental. I didn't like Hilary. But I think what Elizabeth has done is quite significant for the whole 'Are women electable' thing, and the future of women in politics. Simply, she was a legend. She was dynamite on the debate stage. She blew it out of the water, and in a very public way was so obviously strong, charismatic, intelligent, uncomprising. Yes, she didn't win. But it changes the perception of what a woman can do. Women can point to her and go, 'I want to be like her.' And feel the courage to speak their minds and be their strong selves. It is only a matter of time until a woman is President, and sometimes it takes two tries. I have a feeling we have not seen the end of this maverick, visionary PERSON.
I am proud to have lived through this election cycle, and see her shine.
10
@Pjlk I completely disagree. The expectation that women are supposed to be 'nice' and non-aggressive is there with the specific reason to hold us down. To abide by this unequal double standard in the hopes of getting rewarded for our docility is naive. The people in power do not relinquish it willingly; you have to step up and take it. History has shown that repeatedly. Elizabeth stepped up, and her doing so gives courage to do many.
This piece implies that being bright and capable are the only characteristics that count when selecting political leaders. I am more interested in an individual's record, plans for the future, and positions on issues that are critical to me. I support many female candidates throughout the nation because they connect with my values. I do not support Emily's List because simply being a female is not adequate is earn my support (and my money). I
7
While I agree it’s time for a woman to be president, it’s discriminatory to rail against two old men and racist to complain about them being white. Swinging this pendulum so far in the other direction that other people are harmed as other groups rose is wrong. If I were complaining about millennials or women or African-Americans in the way older white men are spoken about, I would be driven out of town in a rail.
11
Agreed.
That said, it should not be completely normal when a female politician says: " I think..." and she's labelled shrill by about half of men before she gets any further in the sentence.
But yes, as a white guy, it is often hard to miss the double standard of boasts and slights.
Women "heal better?" Maybe, I dunno. Can men claim to do anything better? Maybe, but you won't see people making that claim getting favorable coverage in NYT.
I think Warren would have been my ideal pick for president but I don't think she could beat Trump. I think at some level most people understand that you can't beat Bart with Lisa; it's perverse, I know, since Lisa is smarter and better qualified but it is the perfect metaphor because Lisa Simpson is constantly forced to come to terms with how much better/smarter/moral she is than the patriarchal Idiocracy that is her home and town and country.
1
Warren was the only top drawer female candidate. And there is sexism but I doubt that was Warren's problem. She ran hard left and that was a lane already occupied by Bernie who legitimately had primacy there. He built his following in 2016 when Warren chose not to run. Some pundits would say Bernie is not very likable so why is this only Warren's problem but when you're running on the "revolution" platform, by definition you're not asking to be liked, you're in the business fo upsetting people. In the end, she couldn't beat Bernie to the left and it wasn't a big enough lane for the two of them.
Warren could have tried for more of a center left lane and seemed to try to tack back to this later in the campaign but Pete got there first and was better suited to the pragmatic liberal approach than Warren. It is telling that when Warren attacked Pete, it was always from the left, reinforcing the point that she was really about the left lane.
In the end, the two candidates left standing just happen to be the two who were best known when this thing started. Maybe that has something to do with the outcome in this very fractured race.
5
Warren is top drawer ? Good God. She’s not fit to polish Trump’s golf shoes.
Issues issues it's all about issues. Warren and Harris platforms were simply to far left following the Democrat party current direction.
Most Republicans would vote for a Nikki Haley because of her political positions. Would Democrats vote for a conservative Republican women just because she is a women? Doubtful.
Identity politics is a losing proposition...Many Republicans would have found Tulsi Gabbard or Amy Klobuchar acceptable but they were not far enough to the left for Democrats.
5
Some of the difficulty these highly qualified women are having breraking through at the highest level may well be a reflection of our highly distressing trumpian moment. In an environment where most voters just can't bear the idea of four more dystopian years, familiar and low-risk seems the way to go. Although, to be fair, running a vulnerable septuagenarian against the political equivalent of the Joker certainly carries its own load of uncertainties. Either Joe or Bernie would do well to tap a qualified woman - and there are many - as veep. In the meantime, women will continue to comprise the party's modern core.
2
President Trump was a horrible choice but the Republican establishment was unable to stop him.
Secretary Clinton was eminently qualified to be elected president. Yet, she wasn't. Senator Warren is also very qualified to be elected president but didn't make it through the initial wave of primaries.
There has to be a common theme here and the average person knows why.
Many other first world countries have long ago elected women to their respective highest offices. Most of them have shined on the world stage.
I hope and pray that some day, some year, we can rise above prejudicial thinking and begin to rationally analyze candidates based upon their true merits and just do the right thing.
Sadly, yet again, it is not this year.
2
It Is a shame that the presidential race for Dems have left women candidates out in the cold. I believe there are two, but not exclusive, overriding contributing factors, one specific to 2020, and the other more a systemic issue:
1. The ultimate goal of defeating Trump and his destructive and dangerous policies cannot be risked by any candidate who may not win in November, without winning the left, moderates, and yes women voters, especially given the anachronistic electoral college method, hence the Biden surge,
2. The presidential election is by nature, inclusive of all states, from deep red to deep blue, many of whose voters still refuse to believe a woman can be trusted or is capable of being a good president. This still includes large chunks of men and women, most of whom would vote for a black man before any woman, no matter how qualified.
It is both ironic (and appalling) that, during the 100th anniversary of the amendment tor a woman’s right to vote, a period in which freed black men got the vote many years before any woman, we still have so many citizens today in 2020 who will not vote for a woman due to their gender. 2024??
Sent from my iPad
1
"Like Ms. Cardoza, female voters worried the most about the viability of female candidates. Eighteen percent of Democratic women said that a woman could not win the White House, compared with 7 percent of men, according to a CNN poll in January."
Women were being honest. Men were lying. Among pollsters, the phenomenon is called "social desirability."
1
Men are stronger than women and don't get pregnant. It underlies everything. Obviously we need women to keep civilization going but men "do it" to women, not the other way around. Some is cultural in America but in other countries the political structure allows women backed by men to lead, so it's not all lovely equality even in countries with women leaders. It's insanely annoying but it's true. I work in a field where because of biology I'll never have certain qualifications. I'll never be the most qualified. Intellectual pursuits aren't the same but the physical underlies it.
My first choice was Amy. I still wish she had acquired more momentum. I still hope she will be the vice president.
I lost respect for Warren in the first debate when she refused to answer the question about how she would pay for her programs. She was condescending to the audience.
Ultimately, the writer's POV is promoting sexism. There were many male candidates running who didn't get as far as Warren and Klobuchar. What about Corey Booker?
Reducing people to their physical appearance is wrong, no matter which direction this stereotyping is aimed. To become president is 1 in 300 million odds. There will be a female president when the right person shows up.
4
Getting rejected to public office is not the same as getting a job. You have to get enough votes.
First and foremost, candidates must be electable! They need to appeal to a broad segment of individuals across a large diverse country. Generally winners are aspirational, forward looking and optimistic and "connect" with voters. It's an emotional thing; think FDR, Kennedy, Clinton and Obama. The policy wonks and those too far left lose; think Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and Clinton.
People vote for candidates who inspire, yes even Trump.
Democrats have to learn how to win at politics!! They've been out organized by a more ruthless opposition across the board since Goldwater was defeated in '64.
It's not about gender, it's about generally poor candidates pushing unpopular ideas (outside those who've drank the cool aide) and this years crop of Democratic candidates was mediocre at best! Where are the future stars of the Democratic party? Certainly not among a bunch of septuagenarians.
There's a lot of work that needs to be done to defeat the Republicans
1
I am SO tired of "the cards." Race card, gender card, age card, etc.
That there remains no female candidate for the presidential nomination has NOTHING to do with gender. The public, except for a few curmudgeons (often female!) is fine with a female president.
Hillary got the nomination, and she won the popular vote, thus disproving that America isn't ready for a female leader. She did this despite a truck load of perceived baggage, a lot of Hillary Haters, and not having to remove Trump.
Statistically, when women run for public office, they have just as much chance of winning as a man, 50/50. That fewer women run is not because of sexism. It's because fewer women choose to run for office.
I was strongly considering Warren to be my choice until she drove into the far left weeds saying that she would have a high school student vet her secretary of education nominee! Not only that, a TRANS HS student! How PC is that? Over the top.
THAT'S why she lost. Elizabeth Warren. Not sexism.
5
After watching the political landscape intently for the last 5 years, I can sum up why we don't have a female president in one word: Misogyny.
Men have a fear of a woman becoming president. Not all men feel this way, but the vast majority of them secretly fear a woman will change everything about living in our country. This is patently absurd.
Having a woman as president will only make things better for all of us. It will take all women mobilizing to get this accomplished. We can do it.
Like it hasn’t changed in the last forty years ? You mean like that kind of changing I change?
Tulsi Gabbard is still in the race.
Why?
Bernie and Biden are not only quite old, neither looks very healthy and both may be hit hard by the virus. Cynical I know but also weirdly curious.
Maybe if the leading woman candidate hadn't start playing loose with the truth too often. Her fall has nothing to do with her gender.
2
She claims that she was occupying a lane in-between Bernie's and Joe's, but she was actually squarely in Bernie's lane. She went from being a consumer protectionist, who I admired and once hoped to vote for, to an advocate for Sanders' Big Rock Candy Mountain vision of government.
She became Bernie's Mini Me, and voters had little use for this. Her failure had nothing to do with her sex and everything to do with her ambition and her decision to compete head-to-head with Sanders on free government services. This is on her.
3
Why is there such an obsession with qualifications? Who cares about qualifications? Mitt Romney and John McCain were perfectly qualified to be president, but I wouldn’t want them!
I want a candidate who will fight the class war. I don’t care if they’re 35 or 95, male or female, white or black or any other race. Bernie is the only candidate who’s demonstrated that we share the same enemies, so he’s the guy.
As for those who unironically call people Bernie Bros, consider for a moment that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar are most of our favorite members of Congress other than Sanders.
I hear a lot of, “the right woman has not come along yet”. We’re not auditioning for a wife, we’re looking for a president. So, the right man is available every four years? We all have our image of what we want our president to look like, act, and speak like. Trump? Who knows? Anyway, we are never going to find “that person” and Driven Snow will never be on the ballot. Clinton obviously wasn’t her. Harris, Gillibrand, Klobuchar...thanks for auditioning, we’ll let you know. She’s out there...I know she is...
This really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has travelled in the US! Much of the country is still firmly stuck in the 1950s with regards to civil rights and the emancipation of women and those votes are needed for the White House!
1
Show me a highly qualified woman like Nikki Haley and I'll vote for her.
3
Please stop... it isn't 1972 anymore, the young women today are very self reliant and independent. Let's quit rehashing the past and move on with confidence, women have the power you know, now get some confidence and get the job done.
Warren lost due to her platfom. It scared people. I would suggest you look at the career of Margaret Thatcher. Elected 3 times as PM of the UK. Why? not because she was a woman but because her ideas resonated with the public.
I vote for the ideas not the color, ethnicity, sex, physical disability or whatever. It is about ideas. Warren's ideas did not excite people
3
Four years ago Hillary Clinton was the best Democratic candidate for president and she beat out the entire field. Four years ago it was a woman. She was infinitely qualified. I voted for her. The fact she was a woman was irrelevant to me. The fact she was the best candidate, was.
Clinton beat out Sanders for the nomination and though I am not a registered Democrat, I read these pages and others and suspect her nomination was a foregone conclusion. It had been cast in stone from the time she lost to Obama.
But she lost the election. Not because she is female - rather - because she is a Clinton and that legacy tainted her in the minds of many voters - at least the ones I associate with on the very liberal left coast.
This year the candidate will be male. Yes, there is the history of America, back to its founding, of male domination in politics.
I have no doubt some voters simply see gender. But I posit that Trump voters didn't vote for him because he is an offensive, immature imbecile - but because he represented a chaotic force that would detonate the OId Boy's Network in Washington.
In that respect - Trump is as revolutionary a choice as Obama was, or Clinton would have been. At this point we have had 11 years of a president who is a non-standard office holder.
We have got to stop complaining about a candidate's DNA and see their strengths - otherwise we're as guilty of perpetuating this racism and sexism as those we label.
First, Bernie effectively accused Ms. Warren of lying (not the other way around) when he denied the conversation that he had had with her months before. She called him on it after the debate and it was caught on the mic. But more importantly Bernie broadcast his total lack of confidence in Ms. Warren's electability as a woman when he entered the race months after she had declared her candidacy and had laid out her plans all of which virtually mirrored his. The difference was that she is a capitalist, she had created the Consumer Protection Agency, and she had articulated realistic plans for her proposals, oh, and that she is a woman. Scrub that! Here comes Bernie to save the day! What would the outcome have been if the old man had said "She's smart, she has a plan, and by golly, she can do it. I have nothing to add to that and I will work with her to get it done." No Bernie did not think a woman could do it. And he proved it.
1
As long as Republicans have a white male extremist and the far left has a white male extremist then the only way to beat them is with a white male moderate. Obama (center left) won because the far left white guy (Bernie) stayed out of the race and McCain was a center right. Both 2016 and 2020 have bookend white male extremists. The one in office is so bad that we need a moderate to beat him AND we need a white male moderate to beat the far left candidate that has no chance of beating the Republican extremist in office. Until Bernie goes away and Republicans come to their senses it will be a white male.
Wonder whether you'd hold the republicans to the same standards. Or, given their dedication to a medieval theocracy, they are left off the hook?
A white man has not won the popular vote for the American presidency since 2004. Unfortunate that this trend has to end, but you can't deny that this country is making progress.
1
There is a lot of white male rage in this comment thread. Any time women point out their reality, the existence of sexism and its structural operation in all modes of life, the men assume that we are personally calling them sexist and make the gaslighting argument that it was only merit and not at all gender that determined the outcome. This forces the argument into an either / or mode in which women automatically come out on the short end because they can be smeared as 'whiners.' In reality, it is the privilege of a dominant group to say that that one form of inequality (here, gender) is not a factor in the outcome of a situation.
This knee jerk dismissal is not analysis, it is a way of shutting down analysis by people who are afraid to give up their privilege.
I'm sure there are many qualified women who could be elected president. The current batch were deemed not qualified for one reason or another. Don't discount that here we are only talking about democrats who, at least today, may very well be further left than the overall population. Therefore Pamela and Amy were not liberal enough. Pamela is mixed race, Amy was perceived as week. That leaves Elizabeth who, agree or not, is perceived by many as dishonest and a nutcase. Hillary ran a bad campaign. Not totally but just bad enough to lose. And also, agree or not, is considered dishonest and corrupt.
I believe most of us no longer vote for someone but rather against the other. Many in 2016 when poled denied that they would vote for Trump because they were embarrassed to admit it. But Hillary was her own worse enemy. Many women voted for her solely because she was a woman, not because of all her negatives. Many voted for Trump because of what he proposed notwithstanding how distasteful he was. And it seems we no longer expect a candidate who can work with the other side. I'm in my 70s and have never seen us so polarized. This too is a factor.
We will never elect a woman - or a Jew or a black or maybe even an Italian for that matter - until we can find someone is also qualified.
Give me an honest, honorable, moderate woman who can compromise and work with the other side and I'll vote for her.
1
India Gandhi in India, Golda Meir in Israel, Margaret Thatcher in England, Angela Merkel in Germany, Corazon Acquino in the Phillipines, Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, Mari Kiviniemi, jsut to name a few head of states that are women. What do they have in common? They were appointed and NOT directly elected. I am not aware of a women president directly elected.
Was IT Always Going To Be the Last Man Standing? Yes because America is unique in electing the president directly and because the population at large is still wedded to the old male/female role distribution. I takes generations to change. The remnants of the Phyllis Schlafly generation are still alive and voting.
1
I'd love to vote for a woman, a qualified woman, a woman whose policies are sensible, a woman who is not a panderer or hypocrite. Unfortunately, both parties have yet to put a woman like that forward as a candidate for president.
I used to like Warren, I thought she was brilliant actually but she just veered too too too far left in order to pander to the extremists, so Biden got my vote. Last election, Hillary Clinton didn't get my vote because she proved to be sneaky, shady, dishonest so I crossed the line and voted for Trump figuring that at least when he acts out, it's there for all the world to see and he doesn't act with subterfuge. In other words, he's dishonest honestly.
When either party finally finds a female candidate who has sensible policies, common sense, the mental strength to not discard her principles in order to pander, I will run to vote for her.
2
The fact that Elizabeth Warren was leading polls for a while shows she was well regarded and had the potential to win. She lost momentum. That’s politics.
My husband and my son both voted for Elizabeth. I voted Biden at the last minute, turned around by Clyburn's endorsement. I think Elizabeth still has a chance - I picture her on the ticket with Joe Biden. That could end up with her being president eventually.
You’ve got them whipped ! Well done. So much for male intelligence and backbone.
The answer is obvious, misogyny among democrat voters. You can't blame republicans on this one.
4
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 but lost the election due to a strategic screw up on the part of her and her team (ignoring midwest). America has already shown it is willing to elect a woman as president. Just because Warren isn't going to be elected doesn't mean this country is moving backwards.
6
Woman here. I didn't support Warren because of her far left platform. And I didn't support Sanders for the same reason. I support based upon political views like other people do. And this time, I also supported based upon electability because all that matters to me is defeating Trump and I don't think a progressive candidate can do that. I didn't notice other progressive females endorsing Warren including AOC and Ilhan Omar. They supported... Sanders.
2
They supported Sanders because his platform is truly left-wing. There is a significant difference between Warren and Sanders. She is not a Sanders clone, but the media and the Republicans painted her that way. And most Americans are too lazy to do the work to see the difference.
I think misogyny is certainly a factor, but perhaps we shouldn't focus on it so much. Getting to the top depends on a far more complex set of variables, from likeability to raw political talent. Warren is a strong policy wonk, but I never found her to be a very good pol. For many reasons, Klobuchar was my favorite, principally because I thought she was strong, had a strategic political sense, and moderate policy positions. We are evolving and one day I am confident we will have a female president because she will be the right person at the right time.
1
"highly qualified"
What made Elizabeth Warren highly qualified to be president?
What made any of the women in this years candidate group highly qualified?
Resumes notwithstanding, all of these women were rejected by voters who by the way I believe were a majority of women. And now Bernie is getting rejected as well as being unelectable.
There are women who are electable but many probably wouldn't even want the job. As long as potential nominees are initially a self-selected group you're going to get many with no realistic chance despite records of achievement in other political campaigns and activity.
There's no affirmative action when voters vote.
1
This wasn’t about sexism. A very smart, detail oriented economic activist with an incredible biography turned into a candidate I hardly recognized. It was as if she was instructed to amp up the homespun baby talk and feminist rage simultaneously. She lost me as a supporter, but her expertise, intelligence and compassion haven’t dimmed. I’ll look forward to her contributions to our vital national conversation about economic fairness.
8
I think any political analysis has to recognize that for most of us, 2020 is all about un-electing Donald Trump. It's the Un-election of 2020, not the election. And if that means supporting another old white guy so that voters who supported Trump in2016 but now have doubts now can feel comfortable voting against Trump, so be it.
2
Hillary Clinton was the best qualified person for president in my lifetime.
Although she won the popular vote, that doesn't count. The Electoral College should be something Democrats fix if they win big this fall.
There's a lot to fix for the next Democratic president and Democratic Senate because of everything Trump and the Republicans have broken, not just laws, but our traditions, institutions, and our democracy in just three years.
But the fact Hillary didn't win made it more difficult this election cycle for all the women who "threw their hats into the ring." (That phrase is telling too, isn't it?)
It doesn't matter why Hillary lost. She may have lost because she was a woman, because she was a Clinton, or because she didn't visit Michigan and Ohio when she was summoned by anxious pols there who felt her support slipping away.
It doesn't matter. What matters to the all women who ran this time is the disbelief that she lost, the shock of Trump ruling us, and the desperation we feel now to turn Trump out.
And it's not just Trump who has to go, it's his Congressional enablers, primarily Mitch McConnell who has to go as well.
Otherwise a Democratic president will be unsuccessful out of the gate, will lose the 2022 election and perhaps the majority in the House, and face a stiff challenge by Trump or Trump Jr. in 2024.
So we have to win big, and that means throwing all in with the candidate with the bet chance to win big. That candidate was always Joe Biden.
1
It's as if nobody understands the Trump dilemma. Beating Trump has nothing to do with being male or female. Every Democrat will align with the chosen candidate in November. The real problem is Democrats continue to thumb their noses at MAGA supporters and are completely unwilling to engage. Without proper discourse, how can Democrats adopt a platform that resonates with moderate Republicans. Furthermore, they seem to forgotten that Obama, Clinton, and JFK were young, attractive candidates not grandmas and grandpas. The few youthful candidates on the ticket were not appealing to the mainstream because they tended to represent minority viewpoints, not the majority.
1
Well, when you can’t be a Democrat without supporting the wholesale slaughter of children I guess that’s something no decent Republican, or human being for that matter, would ever, could ever want to be aligned with.
1
Hillary Clinton, who was probably our most qualified candidate in recent history won the popular vote by several million and should be our President. It’s not a question of whether there are qualified women. There are. It is a question of whether our election system allows the best candidate to win. Many would say it does not. Perhaps we should focus our attention there.
Ms. Warren was not rejected because she was a woman. She was rejected because she foolishly thought voters would reject Obamacare, which brought them victory in 2018, for an untested theory called "Medicare for All". Not everything is about feminism.
" a majority of Democratic voters rejected them all."
When did this happen? All we've heard from so far is a handful of states. "The majority of Democratic voters" have not said a word.
2
The question will linger for as long as the NY Times continues to insist that identity is paramount. This paper marveled in the diversity of the Democratic field without any foresight that there could only be one nominee, meaning that the field would necessarily get less diverse over the course of the campaign.
Were we supposed to support the Warren who, in early 2019, was the policy wonk with all the reasonable solutions? Or were we supposed to support the Warren who, in mid-2019, was gaining traction in the polls by promising Sanders-like programs but without additional tax burden for most Americans.? Or were were supposed to support the Warren, who in early 2020, started backtracking when it became obvious that you couldn't give away the store and be a pragmatist at the same time? Warren was each of these of the course of her campaign and the idea that she deserved support in each of these incarnations because of her gender is insulting. If Warren's biggest attribute was her gender, then she was a bad candidate.
2
There were qualified men running who were rejected by voters, too. If you don't light the voters' fire, you don't get the votes. Doesn't matter if you're male or female.
5
Let’s put this in perspective. Warren and Klobuchar broke a lot of ground. No one even blinked an eye when they entered the race. And both were considered front runners at some point. Warren went down because of her professerial I’ve got a plan manner which did not resonate with the non-college educated voters. Also as she took down Bloomberg during the debates she blew up her own campaign. Like it or not Bloomberg has a right as an American citizen to fund his own campaign. He broke no laws. As the democrats take down our billionaires Trumps war chest is exploding with dark money from his billionaires and Democrats rally behind reliable Joe who couldn’t even raise enough money for more than one field office in California . Stop the mike won American Samoa jokes. He made the honorable pragmatic data driven decision to leave the race and to help the democratic nominee. I’m not sure the Dems can beat trump without the likes of Mike.
The candidates platform, experience and inter-personal skills come into play too. When that combination doesn’t mesh with the current political environment then the going is tough. Viewing all this through a singular focus like sexism or racism gets us or the candidate no where. Pragmatism, true openness and full debate are being lost in the political theater of our times.
There are plenty of qualified people running for President every cycle. In the history of this country the majority of the people who have run, who were very qualified, who didn't become president were men.
Hillary was the 1st serious female candidate for presidency, the 1st person to even run in a primary, and her 1st run was only 12 years ago. The only serious woman candidate, the only woman to really get anywhere near the prize, in the last 12 years, until this year, was Hillary Clinton.
Certainly the only woman to get the full support of the DNC and the national press was Hillary Clinton.
In 2016, Hillary almost made it, and she was in many ways qualified, in it many ways of very unpopular candidate with a lot of really ugly baggage. But she came very very close to winning the White House. And I don't believe that it was sexism that stopped her.
The race to the oval office is a complicated journey, several complicated journeys intersecting. Many factors combine, lots of events and the press's interpretation of those events can cause a popular candidate to lose steam.
But having the support of the mainstream media, being mentioned in the mainstream media, being taken seriously by the dnc or gop, these things are all vital for a woman candidate, and frankly, it's funny to see The New York Times talking about sexism when they are part of the sexist establishment that only got on board with actively promoting a woman for president in 2016..
Elizabeth Warren was hands down the best choice for president. Like Hillary Clinton 4 years ago, she lost in no small part due to the added scrutiny and inherent distrust of being a woman. Worst of all, it was Democratic voters who wouldn’t vote for her.
There’s always going to be a knock against a female candidate. Hillary wasn’t likable. Warren was too far left. Yet Sanders best Warren and Klobuchar and Harris never caught on.
We will likely end up with the worst candidate as the Democratic nominee (Biden). Or maybe he’s the best we can do, lacking an Obama-like figure to inspire the entire party.
I hope whoever is the nominee (Biden or Sanders) chooses one of the many qualified women as his running mate. If he wins, seeing a woman this close to the presidency may be what the country needs to elect a woman next time (hopefully not Nikki Haley though).
3
I've learned not to pin my hopes on a candidate or anyone else just because of their race, gender, age, whatever. As a black American, I learned that with Obama's presidency. While I don't blame him for doing more to help the working class, poor & black Americans, I was deeply disappointed in just his general lack of vision & boldness, & his unwillingness to get in the ring and fight. After campaigning on the evils of mass govt surveillance, we found out he had codified & strengthened it! He & the Dems actually considered cutting social security if the Republicans agreed to higher taxes on the wealthy! Bernie Sanders put them on blast.
So now I just decide on issues & reject identity symbolism. Warren? Obama felt he had to fire her from agency she built, a concession to Republicans protecting their donors in the finance industry. That's what politics will do to the symbolic figures who lack fight and uphold centrism.
Sexism,racism, classism--hardly surprising in the USA.
1
According to the Center for American Women and Politics, women make up more than half the population of the US and women typically cast 10,000,000 more votes than men in national elections. I love Elizabeth Warren, have from the moment Obama hired her before she ran for Senate. But the fact is, not enough women voted for her.
2
This line of reasoning is not exactly accurate. We would have a woman as president today if not for a fluke thanks to the electoral college. Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump.
Hopefully Biden will select a woman as VP and she will become president in 2024.
1
I voted for a woman, four years ago. Her name was “Hillary Clinton.” Believe it or not, she actually received almost 3 million more votes than the male she ran against, but lost because she (and her staff of men and women) failed to campaign in 3 key states and still had $20 million in the bank on Election Day. So, yes, a woman can be president. That’s today’s American Moment, brought to you by me.
1
It is a testament to the deplorable-ness of Trump that he lost the election (yes, the actual votes) to a woman. The fact that Warren, Klobacher, and Harris did so poorly when they were so very qualified exposes the pervasive American misogyny that is present everywhere you look. But, at this moment in time, if it takes a white man to kick out Trump, I will support Biden (happy to do so) or even Sanders However, I believe that the Democrat's choice of Obama (a great man but inexperienced politician) over H. Clinton (great woman and the most qualified candidate ever) shows that the background pervasive misogyny is everywhere (trumpsters, moderates, and progressives alike). But maybe we can accept a woman VP who can then proceed to break through that stubborn resistance to the obvious- that women are capable leaders.
2
Maybe the lack of a Democratic female candidate has to do with 2 factors: voters didn't care for Warren (she is viewed as calculating and dishonest) and it is a further repudiation of identity politics.
I so hope that the first female President comes from the Republican side so that we can put this topic to bed. Then the question can be reformulated to: are Democrats so race/gender conscious in their fight for equality that that they actually become the bigots they fight against.
1
I would not vote for a man who is pandering and a lliar. Why would I vote for Warren? The non-sexist people of the US gave to Hillay the popular vote and she could have received electoral college vote too if she visited crucial states in the final days of the campaign.Please do not imply that we are sexist.HRC and Warren were lacking in political judgement and honesty.
3
There is no single reason why a woman, why Warren, didn't make it. Why wasn't this question all over the news when Gillbrand, Harris, and Klobuchar dropped out? Warren had the best shot from the beginning because she was the "sane" progressive and stood out as such. More accomplished, generally nicer than her counterpart. Until she decided not to be. I was an undecided voter (basically wanted to see who was left) but she was still in the running for me until then. It might have been bad advice or her own decision to come out swinging/nasty in order to score (short-term) points at a debate. I know she still defends that, but it seemed out of character to me for her to not get the full picture. It appeared to be just because Bloomberg is a billionaire and that smacks of prejudice. In fact her repetition and echoing of Bernie's class warfare was also a turn off. None of this had to do with her being a woman. I don't like it any better (in fact worse) with Bernie and he foments more divisiveness and nastiness than Warren did. I didn't like it when Pete and Amy tried attack mode. It turned me off to Harris immediately. You don't build yourself up by taking others down.
That said, anyone can analyze a failed campaign in any way they choose and make a case. We have gender issues for sure, but selecting only this as the reason makes no sense to me. Isn't it time for the media to stop shaping all of our thinking and just report facts?
1
Because her staff forgot to pay attention to electoral votes.
That's all. She won. But the people she - and we - relied on did not do their jobs.
It doesn't seem like that can be attributed to sexism.
1
The presidential race is more than a competency contest, it's a popularity contest. Trump winning is case in point. If it was based on competency many of the past candidates and presidents wouldn't have qualified. Bill Clinton's appearance on Arsenio Hall show in sun glasses playing the sax apparently was more impressive to some voters than him being a Rhodes Scholar. The bottom line is what the voters perceive that they see in a candidate and not what the experts see.
All of the women running for president were highly qualified, but they didn't convince enough voters to keep them in the race. I wish there was a better way to qualify someone running for president so that we never get someone like Trump again.
65
@VMG You consider them qualified, and it is certainly PC to assume they are. But that does not mean a majority of voters think so. Apart from that, it has been said, and this is clear logic: when a candidate declares gender to be a reason for being elected, an important gap is created in qualifications.
HRC did that in 2008 in New Hampshire, and both Warren and Klobuchar did this 2-3 times this year.
Note that Angela Merckel has never done that. And she's one of the best leaders of a major nation we've ever seen. She never asked for any special consideration due to her gender.
4
@VMG we need to change the primary process. Idaho and New Hampher do not represent this country. But once a candidate wins there that is where the $ goes.
I live in NJ, we have one of that last primaries even though it is one of the most diverse sates.
Change is so hard.
1
@Feldman
No, not really PC, as I would have accepted any of them over Trump in a heart beat.
2
The narrative is not that women are less electable than men - not at all. The narrative is that in any election (but most certainly this one) we have to choose the right person. There is no basis for deciding on gender alone.
Smart, sophisticated women boosted Joe Biden's candidacy in South Carolina, Virginia, and elsewhere. I'm a guy who voted for Clinton in 2016 and for Klobuchar (in early voting) in 2020. Had I voted on the day of the Texas primary, I would have gone for Biden.
2
Because there is no arbitrating authority to whom one qualifies. Being elected a leader means seizing the reins of the intangible qualities of the broad cross section of society and giving it direction and a story. Treating the job like something one dutifully checks off boxes for is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of this form of leadership.
10
The media followed the men, which was disastrous for Warren, and the focus on her gender was an electability trap.
If the Dems wanted to really capitalize on her acumen, plans, and abilities, she would be a great VP, especially since Biden has signaled he's in it for only one term and could make the VP position a much more visible role.
This has the potential to bring in progressive/women voters like many of us while demonstrating the viability of a woman president.
But of course the media, and the men who really don't want women to succeed at the highest levels...
1
Two old white men at that. We're not moving forward, in the effort to return to the middle-of-the-road status quo, we're actually moving backwards. On the other hand, Trump has already moved us back 30-40 yrs, so maybe middle is an improvement.
13
I would have been happy to vote for her but I didn’t because she is against all trade agreements and doesn’t understand international trade importance. It was an issue thing.
4
To those who criticize Warren for her platform - please explain why we still have Biden - whose sole argument throughout the campaign has been "I get things done"?
To those who criticize Warren for her personality or style - please explain why we still have Biden - inarticulate, seemingly confused and, unfortunately, demonstrates a "over the hill" presence. You don't push the weak to the front line in the most important fight of our lifetime.
12
Because this is how the democratic process works? More people thought that Biden would be a good president than felt that Warren would be a good president?
We don't have ranked choice voting. Except in the caucuses which it seems that the establishment wants to get rid of.
1
The overwhelming factor in this election is the ability to beat Trump. Biden is seen by the majority of voters as the most likely candidate to do so.
@SocialDem Ask all the states that Biden won, why the huge change of heart?
The fact Warren couldn't do anything thing against Biden, says way more about her than Joe.
1
There are so many intangibles that go into the choice of a President who is Chief of State and Head of Government. In many countries those jobs are split.
I was for Obama from the beginning but I have to admit that after he won and took office I was taken back the first time I saw President Obama walk down the steps of Air Force One. The thought flashed through my mind "doesn't that guy know that's the President's plane?"
I'm so accustomed to seeing Nancy Pelosi effectively exercise power that I wouldn't have any "adjustment period" with her walking down the steps of Air Force One.
2
There are so many intangibles that go into the choice of a President who is Chief of State and Head of Government. In many countries those jobs are split.
I was for Obama from the beginning but I have to admit that after he won and took office I was taken back the first time I saw President Obama walk down the steps of Air Force One. The thought flashed through my mind "doesn't that guy know that's the President's plane?"
I'm so accustomed to seeing Nancy Pelosi effectively exercise power that I wouldn't have any "adjustment period" with her walking down the steps of Air Force One.
That hypothetical woman isn’t the only highly qualified candidate. And being highly qualified is not the only attribute that garners support. Nor us gender. Nor is personality. Nor us likability. Nor is being a good campaigner.
It’s simply who wins the most votes in the primary. It’s simply who wins the electoral college in the general election.
HRC was very qualified, of course. I voted for her. She was also condescending. She also ignored the rust belt and insulted working people. That all counts.
In 2016, I preferred Warren. This year, I was disappointed in her. She wouldn’t answer a simple question about tax increases for the middle class. She was very evasive. She rolled over millions in corporate donations from her senate campaign, but attacked others for taking their own corporate donations. She broke her own pledge and took PAC support.
I feel like she let us down, like she was no different from the rest. I ended up shifting my support to Amy, and now to Biden.
3
Clinton had 3 million more votes than Trump, that should answer the question of electability. The real question that needs an answer is why does any woman vote Republican?
12
Women are not a monolithic group anymore than men are. Why does any man vote Republican?
There is a woman out there who's voting Republican for exactly the same reasons.
@joan Men's bodies are not under attack from Republicans Joan, that's why.
At the risk of sounding like a mansplainer, I think we will see a female president soon enough. We just haven't had the right candidate yet. Clearly, experience and policy chops aren't enough; there is a likability factor at play as well. You may not have liked Bill Clinton, but he was likable. So was George W. Bush and Barack Obama. My hunch is that a Republican woman, Nikki Haley, may be the first female candidate to offer both the governing experience as well as the likability to win over a wide swath of the American population, both men and women. Are there women like her on the Democratic side? I sure hope so. And that Democratic leaders start grooming them for the national stage sooner than later.
2
But in 2016 the Democrat's nominee WAS a woman.....and she won the popular vote by a healthy margin. One could argue that it was a woman, Jill Stein, who denied Hillary the win. Stein's votes in Mich, Wisc, and Penn were beyond the Trump win margin in each of those states. Of course there is sexism in America, but to claim that it is why a woman was not nominated this time is a leap. I was a Republican who voted for Hillary. While I did not like her personally, I recognized her experience and capabilities while I saw neither of these in Trump. While I would not have voted for her solely because she is a woman, given her superiority to Trump, I saw a woman President as a nice step forward as the father of daughters and grandfather of a granddaughter.
5
The more I read people's rationalizations for not voting for Elizabeth Warren, or Klobuchar, or Harris, the more it is clear that members of the Democratic party are absolutely incapable of facing their internalized unconscious misogyny.
Never in a million years could I imagine someone so qualified and compassionate as Elizabeth Warren losing this contest if she were a man. Just picture: a male senior senator, from a progressive state with rural roots and a working class upbringing. He was a public school teacher, who later left to pursue law school, dedicating his life to researching the problems of the middle class. He's 70 but still so young. He runs around the state, literally sprinting on stage waving furiously and excited. He's well spoken and sharp as a tack, there is no issue facing America he can't address off the top of his head. He's also a published author on these very subjects. He cares about the American people and he's been fighting for them his entire life. His stream of policy plans have reshaped the race entirely. He has a policy plan for every single issue facing the nation that you could imagine. He's found a way to truly include everyone.
He decided on the campaign trail that he would take selfies with everyone. In the end, he took over 100,000 with voters from around the country. And all the way through, he is humble, kind, warm, and ready to take the reins. His dog is the cutest. And he could not be a better foil of the current president.
And yet.
23
@Mia
Exactly! It's so frustrating voters chose these two candidates over a proven problem solver. Heaven help us. We may have to get through four more years of Trump.
2
@Mia - But also imagine he claimed Native American ancestry on his his Harvard job application and recently announced he would have a "young trans person" interview his future Secretary of Education and only hire this future secretary if the young trans person approves.
While perhaps not campaign killers these self-inflected wounds would certainly make many question his electability in the general election.
@Mia she didn’t even win her own state? I guess you saw something her own constituents didn’t.
I get the argument on the face but Biden has Obama name to lean on as well as his own name recognition. People are scared and want something that feels familiar, even if he is a forgetful boring old white man that they don't really want. Given the state of politics right now, a safe bet doesn't seem like a bad idea. Sanders really brought a lot of the great ideas that Warren supported, to the main stage. he built a momentum in the last race and was able to ride it. Warren comes in 3rd because she was trying to be the moderate of Sanders ideas but didn't really look like she was bringing her own. I personally think she was the best candidate, she is sharp, clear, well planned and recognizes good ideas. She is an educator and wants to unify people behind her with participation through understanding. Sanders has great ideas but he is too volatile, too out of touch socially put a lot of voters at ease. Warren had my vote but coming in 3rd seemed obvious to me. I voted for Sanders because he had more momentum and I prefer him to Biden but I wanted Warren. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. My hope is that she runs with Sanders and he picks her as a VP. That will be reassuring for Sanders voters who are uncomfortable with his age because she would actualize his policies and we know her.
The US population is comprised of 50.8 women. In the latest elections, women vote at higher rates than men, 58 to 53 percent. The data tells us with strong clarity; women are not voting for women. Stop blaming sexism for voting patterns. We do not have a woman in the presidential race for one reason, the voters did not want any of the women running as the candidate. This is not sexism; it is democracy.
4
Here's the view from one old white guy. I really liked the Elizabeth Warren who wrote The Two Income Trap, and who pushed for the CFPB. Her age was not a problem for me because she can fake being 50 much better than she can fake being Cherokee. But then she decided she had to pass Bernie on the left. Her policy proposals became not only more detailed, but more and more extreme. She lost track of what can actually be accomplished in the real world in 2020. I'm sorry that happened. She was my first choice. But then she lost me. And none of this had anything to do with her gender.
3
Name recognition has a lot to do with the results, and I was very disappointed with the early media coverage of the candidates. There were so many articles about whether or not Biden was too old or Sanders too liberal, or what one of them said somewhere. Even trump's Ukrainian scandal kept Biden in the news.
Coverage of lesser known candidates was virtually absent from this newspaper - I would have like to have seen full bios and platforms of all of them from the very beginning. I'd like to see the NYT not weigh in on any candidate at the start, but just give each robust coverage - give them a chance to be known. Unknowns don't poll, then not polling makes them not-news, and so on.
4
There is no doubt that women face a higher bar than men. The Democratic Party had an outstanding, qualified candidate for President in 2016.
The Republicans had prepared for Hillary Clinton's nomination for years. They pummeled her with phony hearings and created an illusion of her as a nefarious criminal. Bernie Sanders did her no favors by painting her as corporate shill and implied that she stole the election from him by ignoring actual votes.
Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders by 3.5 million total democratic primary votes. She received almost 3 million more votes than Donald Trump across the country. Sadly since urban America is under represented in the electoral college, it wasn't enough.
Elizabeth Warren was a flawed candidate. She lost her cool when she went after Bernie Sanders on stage. She bludgeoned Mike Bloomberg. It was a calculated take down, it was effective but she came off as a prosecutor not someone who would lift us up.
You can argue that if a man did that it would have been okay. Bernie does it all the time. For me I find it one of Bernie's most unattractive qualities and I won't vote for him.
What gets lost in all of this was Amy Klobuchar. She is a far more effective Senator than either Warren or Sanders and was largely ignored because it wasn't her turn. I suspect she will be Biden's VP and if they win will be the President in the very near future.
4
As long as women Democratic candidates continue to campaign as women rather than on traditionally presidential issues (e.g., national security, the macroeconomy), it remains likely that the first woman president will be Republican. The Dems' best bet in this regard, I believe, is a VP Klobuchar, who would have 4 years to develop executive-branch experience (esp. foreign relations) before Biden announces his intention not to run for a second term. Showing herself in the deabtes less intelligent, less well staffed, and less prepared than Warren, Klobuchar nevertheless resisted the temptation of woe-is-me and you-go-girl self-absorbtion.
1
A major part of the problem is women won’t support women. Why, for example, does a so-called progressive like AOC choose to support Bernie over Senator Warren? With this choice by “progressives” in play, it is likely that the first woman president will be Republican Nikki Haley. Congratulations progressives.
1
Let's stop right now before rehashing the whole sexism angle. Warren was not particularly qualified to be the President. Personality wise she was particular unsuited for the job. Face it. The President is a sales job not a number cruncher academic think tank position. Warren is much more suited to the law and elite faculty positions she held in the past. She is not an effective Senator either. Perhaps a non-leadership position in an agency. She is not cut out to be a manger or a leader. Aside from the "it is time of a woman", regardless of any other qualifications, contingency no one was inspired by Warren. She is always looking to break and punish not to build and persuade. She is a zealot yet not even a genuine one e.g. Sanders. You always feel it is a strategy with her. You'll see when she endorses Biden. It certain though that Warren will add woman to her long victim resume.
Must I spell it our - Kolbachar and Warren are smart, strong, highly qualified, and on top of their game.
Biden is none of those, and befuddled. Yet the Party has lined up behind him strongly.
Historically - this will be the last year of the Reagan and Wilson administrations. Where cognitively limited Presidents had the reins of power taken from him by cabinet members, wives and astrologers.
The disaster that is coming is the debates - Can you imagine a Koblbachar/Warren vs Sanders debate, or a Koblbachar/Warren vs Trump debate? Now put Joe Biden...
I can see Biden refusing to debate Sanders and Trump going forward.
Got the vote a century ago give it time. Have a woman in the third highest spot women as Justices in Supreme Court. When the right candidate appears and the public is excited it will happen like with Obama.
We had a finite number of women in this race, none of which were viewed as 'quite right' by the Democratic electorate. It is at least as plausible that the right woman didn't show up in the group of candidates as it is that Democrat voters have a problem with women. My intuition tells me it is more plausible. I have been a strong Hillary Clinton supporter for decades. I didn't see anyone in the group of women that matched Clinton in terms of appeal to the full spectrum of Democratic voters, and in the end, they fell short of the appeal of Biden and Sanders as well. I admired Warren and Klobuchar, but am not surprised that each failed to gain widespread support.
Why other countries produced great leaders like Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi, but this country is unable to elect yet a woman president? Liberalism and Hollywood may be the main reason. Their depiction of woman as sex symbols and promotion of sexual revolution instead of respect to womanhood and other aspects of their life is the main reason why woman has not yet become President of America. Other countries may not have as much sexual revolution as in America, but there is much more respect to woman.
58
@Alex K
Quite honestly, America does not grow great leaders, and certainly not wise ones... except for Sanders!
We do have many competent leaders,
but America, with capitalism as a religion and profit as god, the motivation to "serve the people", is easily corrupted...
But, as to the gender of the President...
It is the integrity, ideas, policies, vision that matter,
NOT gender.
It interested me that while the pundits wailed about the lack of diversity, Blacks chose not to support Black candidates in large numbers.
I was amused that Clyburn could so effectively move black voters to Biden... I figure that Black voters simply do not have the need for medicare for all, free Quality child care for All, Quality early childhood through twelfth grade education, with tuition free continuing education, student loan forgiveness...
There are more women in government, finally!
Soon, America, will have female president.
But integrity, ideas, policies and vision are the priority!
1
@Lucy Cooke
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your assessment about growing US presidents. This country "grew" Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt just to name a few. They were history changing presidents. As for Sanders being the only great leader of this time,he hasn't produced any significant bills while in the Senate and is proposing plans that could cost upward of $30 trillion while we have a nation debt of $23 trillion and climbing. Sorry, I don't see any great leadership there.
8
@Alex K...... You may be on to something. Possibly why Tulsi Gabbard is touted as presidential material because she resembles Wonder Woman by many of her male fans but she is so not in Elizabeth Warren's league when it comes to intelligence.
3
I think electibility or not of women may be bias and if not its unique to America. England and Germany have had Female Top leaders, Merkel for a long time. Hilary Clinton in 2016 was elected with a majority vote: Only the electoral college cancelled this victory. Electibility, is a largely vacuous concept, because if fails or holds depending on whether a candidate wins elections. We should forget on this in theory and concentrate on how well a candidate does in current and near current elections.
3
For me, it's policy over gender.
If a candidate supports the policies that I support, I will support them.
Gender isn't even a consideration for me.
14
@Barbara T
Nor should it be. To vote for —or against— any candidate by gender us simply sexist. It is also foolish in that it cuts out half the pool of possible good candidates.
Women had a chance to elect the most qualified and smartest Presidential candidate in decades in 2016. They voted for and got Trump elected instead. I am a man and I voted for Clinton.
9
I voted for Joe even though I wanted Warren because I want the democrats to keep the house, take the senate and the presidency. If he wins we can end the electoral college, gerrymandering, fix health care by eventually making a single payer system and make the supreme court 11 persons. That's what I call progressive! I worry we will lose the senate, the house and the presidency if Bernie becomes the candidate. The moderates will not vote for him.
We will still be progressive with Biden. He is smart and will put good people in all positions of power My bet is he will pick Harris to be his VP. She will be president in 2024. Keep your eye on the prize.
4
The Democratic electorate believes that the most important issue in the 2020 election is defeating Donald Trump.
They are voting for whomever they believe can effectively do that. I guarantee that if that person happened to be a woman, she would get the Democratic nomination.
End of story.
2
I continue to be appalled by the double standard applied to women in politics, and by the fact that I will have to choose between two men once again. People forget some very basic things about Hillary, and one of them was her celebrity and how close to the Presidency she was on name recognition alone. This year, it was Sanders' time to be the household name... Sure, maybe Elizabeth will be so next time... And yet, we continue to see women who have most likely worked twice as hard to be on that debate stage been pushed to the side for what are average, every-day-politician mistakes, no scandals, no ineptitude, no speechifying. It is strange to me that in the post-#MeToo era we are debating whether or not it matters and whether or not we are ready. To me, the goal here is not to hold a seat in an office; it is the ripple effect, the majority-female cabinet, the revision of the whole system, from history to education... A woman needs the Oval Office.
3
I realize it's too soon, but the problems with the candidacies of Gabbard, Gillibrand, Harris, Klobuchar, and Warren (let's just skip past Williamson) will grow less deniable with time, much the way a year later many more could see Hillary Clinton's fatal flaws. In the end, Warren's poor showing with centrists' and African Americans' had little to do nothing to do with gender--the party HAS already nominated a woman--and everything to do with calculating who was best poised to beat a nightmare. Whether they are right remains to be seen, but Warren's demise had more to do with Sanders than sex. Really.
4
She was competing for the same voters as Bernie and Bernie happens to be way more popular with that crowd. Plus, we were only a few states away from having Hilary be the president in 2016.
1
Your front page headline asks "If a woman is highly qualified to be President, why isn't she?"
Perhaps because the majority of voters feel there is a more qualified man. In many elections, the reverse is true.
The identity politics that characterize so much of the reporting in the Times and much of the liberal media is divisive, counterproductive, and inappropriate. It is disheartening to say the least. People should choose whom to vote for based on the candidate's qualifications, not his or her gender.
Let me remind the Times that in the US there are more women registered to vote than men, and that a higher percentage of women vote than men.
9
@Alex
Exactly. The implication of the headline being that Warren is qualified to be President. She is not and it was plain to the voters.
I certainly understand the frustration (even as a man). But at several points reading the article, found myself protesting, "But Hillary won by three million votes!"
I know she didn't get the role her votes earned, or said she should get, but in a real sense, America DID elect a woman. We just have to figure out how to get the electoral college obstruction out of the way. 2018 capitalized on her victory.
This time around, I think the country is seeking someone with the broadest, most mainstream, familiar, most tried-and-true appeal to be sure to beat Trump. The fear that another four years with Trump will destroy us is leading everyone, I suspect, to say, in effect, now is no time for anything/anyone new, or untried.
Let's not give anyone on the fence an excuse to vote for the orange menace again. This over all.
3
Amy Klobuchar for VP. She'll be a great president after Biden finishes his first, or even second, term. I have supported her all along because I think she's the best for the job.
We pick the candidate we think will lead the country where we want the country to go. I never liked the positions of Warren or Harris. Where we want to country to go is a personal decision. I don't think sex will override our personal ambitions and hopes for the country when it comes to choosing the President -- or Congressional candidates for that matter.
I (a man) voted for Senator Warren and I'm sorry she won't be the nominee. However, at least for now I'm not prepared to ascribe her loss to sexism. According to the media, Joe Biden's unexpected victories were propelled, in part, by the support of suburban women. How does that fit the sexism narrative? Also, what percentage of Senator Warren's support came from those, like me, who are male? Crying sexism is easy; before we do so, let's take a look at the data and see what it really shows.
6
Yes, it was always going to be the last man standing. People are going for electability and the perception is that a man has a better chance than a woman. Sad, but true. That being said, I hope there is a female in the VP spot.
1
The first female president of the United States will be the winner of the VP contest that Biden and Sanders are currently playing in their heads. Due to health problems? Maybe. One has had a heart attack and one's mental acuity is in question. But the likely reality is that the country will come together to discard the current menace to the republic by voting for either Democratic candidate. The strain of running the nation will likely convince either winner to serve one term. People will notice the improvement in their lives and whoever has the VP slot will be the nation's first female president. Then the flood gates open.
2
The dem nominee still doesn't *have* to be a man. There are two virtual octogenarians running, one with heart trouble, the other with uh detail issues. Coronavirus is running around.
Wait until July.
2
Democrats and the media have placed identity front and center in considering “qualifications,” arguably more so than the rest of us. Why not look for some simpler explanations. Warren had significant baggage that was disturbing, and whatever her merits, she could not even carry the state where she was born (and the source of her narrative), nor the state she currently represents. Perhaps she is just not that compelling a candidate, regardless of gender. That said, Warren claims to be a “unifier.” Yet in MA, her home state, a major source of high paying jobs and job growth have been the biotech and Pharma sectors - but not only has she not ever lifted a finger to support her home industry, she has been openly antagonistic. Maybe the folks who know her best, like her the least for good reasons.
3
It's simple- Warren And Clinton were (are) hard to like. Maybe personalities shouldn't be a deciding factor but it is.
It's not restricted to women either. Bernie Sanders is hard to like too, and he won't get elected partially because of it, as well.
4
Agree with most of the comments here relating to the article. And, IMO we will have a woman as President in the not so distant future. So in the mean time maybe we should have a woman VP. The Democratic nominee has many highly qualified candidates to choose from.
Side bar observation... it is interesting the age discrimination doesn’t seem to be a problem in politics but if you are over 55 and laid off in the private sector try replacing your former job and income.
1
The answer is obvious if it's Biden. Warren was perceived as too far left. If Sanders wins, the answer is she's too smart and policy-oriented. Did gender play a role. Some. But we'll have to endure another round of the same tired cliches every time until a woman becomes President. My answer: elect a woman President in 4 years!
1
When will the press acknowledge that presidential campaigning requires more charisma than policy?
Warren has none. Neither do any of the other candidates, apart from Sanders.
Sorry, guys, but presidential politics is showbiz. Trump understood this, as did Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Obama. Warren's showbiz chops are abysmal, hence her poor showing (and Biden's and Bloomberg's and Klobuchar's and etc. etc.) A complete lack of warmth or charisma led in part to Hillary's trouncing in 2016, although that was not her only problem.
In short, the Dems must realize that a prerequisite to winning a presidential election is a candidate with zazz. No zazz, no win, that's the deal, and Warren notably lacks it.
2
Yes. It was always going to be white man. Democratic nominee has to be a white man, I say this as a progressive and grassroots organizer, who organized for Obama and Clinton and leads a grassroots group. This election is only about defeating Trump, nothing else. This election was never about policy - progressive or otherwise, nor was it about electing a woman. This is a psychological election in which the country needs to settled and grounded, comforted so that it can move forward. The country's future is literally on the ballot this year. The revolution Bernie speaks of was when Obama was elected. The country's first African American president was too much for some, and Trump is so incredibly disruptive that the country will experience PTSD when he is gone. We know VP Biden, we've known him for years. We can trust in his leadership and competence, the country can relax and evaluate its next steps to move forward. The progressive path runs through electing Biden in 2020.
1
If I were to advise a female candidate running for office, I would tell her to emulate Barack Obama. Avoid at all times talking about it being about your identity as a woman.
It is very important to have your competence and ideas heard and to avoid reminding voters of whatever negative stereotype they may have about a female office holder.
Those who will support you because of your identity will still be at your side without you explicitly embracing it. Those who are wary will be less so if you just act like candidates they have seen in the past.
I hope she doesn't endorse either candidate. Neither is a good candidate for President. I plan to write in Warren.
1
Thank you Elizabeth for running. I supported you with funding. Keep fighting the fight. Do not give up. We will get there!
2
I don't think it was always going to be a man. But it was obvious early on that it wasn't going to be Warren or some of the other women "hopefuls".
Ironically, over a year ago I was told by a dyed-in-the-wool Trumpster that he most feared Amy Klobuchar. At the time she had not yet declared and I, a tried-and-true East/West Coast Democrat had absolutely no idea who Amy Klobuchar was.
And that's the problem. For a variety of reasons, but mostly due to geographical location, most Democrats outside of Minnesota had no idea who Amy Klobuchar was. She was just one of 47 Democratic Senators; a number, not a name.
I'm comfortable with Joe Biden so I'm not too disappointed that Amy Klobuchar has now left the race (and endorsed him). But if she hadn't been overshadowed by Warren as "the woman in the race" she may have had more staying power. And, to be honest, it was sickening to see how the Democratic left started tearing apart Amy when she did seem to get some traction.
Alas, this is not Amy's (or any other female Democrat's) year. But I won't be disappointed at all if Biden chooses her as his running mate thereby giving her a leg up for an eventual "promotion".
1
The way the Biden candidacy was resuscitated on its deathbed and leapfrogged over everyone else's, the message from the Democratic party establishment is loud and clear: college educated suburban white women don't count. It wasnt an insult to any one candidate, it was an insult to the voters. The outcome of the first broad-based vote of the Democratic electorate on Super Tuesday was already determined by the party surrogates' hyping of the unsurprising win by Biden in South Carolina and the forced premature exit of the other moderate competitors. Warren supporters saw that the only ideologically similar candidate, Sanders, was their last hope to get not-Biden as the nominee, and voted in large numbers for him instead.
1
She's not going to be President because she didn't get enough votes in her party's primaries. Even in her home state of Massachusetts, she only came in third place. Perhaps she's the wrong woman for the job?
6
The reason we don’t have a woman President is that the Republicans are exceptionally good at demonizing female candidates and Democrats and independents are exceptionally good at believing them. Mention Hillary among any group of Democrats today and count the number who make a sour face.
Secondary to that is the strange refusal of many women to support other females who are accomplished and successful. This is something that males can’t comprehend.
1
Tulsi Gabbard, anyone? Still in the race. Has qualified for the next debate -- as the DNC changes the rules to exclude her. (Note how the DNC changed the rules to include Mike Bloomberg.)
How can you spill so much ink on this subject without mentioning Gabbard, her critique of the DNC, and her principled stance against regime-change wars and the military-industrial complex?
1
When the right woman comes along, democrat or republican she will get the vote. Right now the electorate still trust a man more for the job. And yes, I believe the vote is a matter of trust. So who do you want to blame?
2
“The narrative that somehow women are less electable than men seems to still be an issue. It’s very disgusting really,”
That narrative -- like these articles -- come pretty much exclusively from women. And that narrative was nowhere to be found last cycle when Hillary won the popular vote.
One idea: stop running campaigns that make men the enemy and stop talking about how it's "a woman's turn". This isn't the Harvard admissions office.
And for what it's worth, my first choice this cycle was one of the women who dropped out far too soon.
3
Using generalities is not helpful. The question should be is any particular woman most qualified to be president versus any particular man. For that matter, unless being a narcissist or sociopath is an essential qualification, it's highly likely the most qualified is rarely president anyway, or even in the running.
2
Q: "If a woman is highly qualified to be president, why isn't she?"
A: The electoral college.
Most Americans voted for a woman for president in 2016.
4
@Todd Miller start playing the Electoral College game and quit whining.
Clinton campaign like garage and it showed. She ignored key states, and it bit her in the behind.
It really bites that bad cattle states like Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin matter in elections. Sometime you got to grub around with the undesirables to actually win the vote./s
It is time to grow up and realize that women, as men, have character traits some of which are off-putting and others of which are likable. It is as simple and as complicated as that.
It's hard to define what makes a person likable although we all respond when he or she is. Attempts to genderize the issue are a waste of time and an excuse for venting resentments.
Contrast Klobuchar and Ocasio-Cortez. Both can be quite forceful but neither is accused of being strident. If people have problems with them it is because of their polices (or lack of them).
Feinstein ("Dianne"), von der Leyen, Dolly Parton (I had to throw her in) Merkel, Lagarde, Marion-Marechel Le Pen all have high likability ratings despite their differences in personality. Warren and Hillary Clinton did not.
Because I agreed with most of her policies, I tried to like Warren but, in the end, could not. I could put it into words, but is it of any interest to the world? Her failure to rub me the right way is not a sexist, social or political issue. This is a pot which does not need stirring.
2
I am sure Americans will someday vote for a woman in large enough numbers to override the implicitly reactionary bias of the electoral college.
I am also sure that she hasn't been born yet.
1
Like many voters, I'm more than willing to vote for a woman to be President--I already did that with Hillary. The issue with Warren was not her gender; it was pretty much everything else. She was not the most experienced (Biden was VP for 8 years), her platform was too close to Bernie's, and she made mistakes (the inexplicable DNA test, the healthcare rollout and walk-back) that made it clear she wasn't quite ready for prime time. I wish that people throwing around accusations of sexism would take a step back and try to look at her objectively. She simply was not the best candidate, and a majority of voters recognized it. That's all.
Please explain how sexism doomed Elizabeth Warren, yet in 2018 an over whelming number of democratic women were elected to Congress.
Warren could look to Nancy Pelosi as an example of what it takes to be a powerful woman.
2
Americans don't have the luxury of being choosy this year. We need a for sure winner. They all worked so hard and any of them would be far greater than Trump.
Let's not forget that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with a lot going against her... Russian interference, Comey's statement, and third party candidates stealing her votes. This country absolutely can and WILL elect a woman. In the meantime, if Biden is our Presidential candidate, I expect he will have a woman as VP. And that will be an important first.
2
Seniority system in the Senate has kept white men in leadership positions and the women are not given the same opportunity to be seen as political leaders. When we do get to see women asking the questions, we can see they are more than capable of leading but those times are few and of short duration especially in the House where each is limited to 5 minutes. Also too many women on the news shows have way too much make up with long false eyelashes and look like they are competing in pageants.
1
Hilary Clinton, a woman wouldn't you agree won the popular vote in 2016 as the Democratic party nominee. By a quirk of our constitution she was denied the presidency. Here we are four years later and because not one of the many women who were vying for the nomination obtained enough votes, the final 2 candidates are men in the democratic primaries attests to nothing more than the voters preferred them at this juncture. Had the women candidates united behind one women then maybe that woman would be a candidate at this time. Sexism is not the problem. The original 24 candidates were the most diverse in history. Bravo. Now let's defeat the bigoted, ideologue, US hating Sanders folllowed by the defeat of Drumpf and I, a liberal democrat, will be happy.
Build the pipeline. Biden or Bernie should commit to gender parity in the cabinet and on their ticket.
1
In a world where we already had a black president for 8 years starting over a decade ago, it's pretty hard if not impossible for me to believe that the only reason a wealthy and extremely privileged white woman from an elite background at Harvard isn't going to get the nomination is because of her gender.
By all means, sexism is a problem. But it's already been demonstrated -- twice -- that larger social barriers can be overcome in this game than what any of the women in this race faced.
2
If it weren't for yet another outright electoral theft Hillary would be president now. Nobody is going to elect just any woman, it has to be the right candidate. I liked Harris Warren and Klobuchar, but I think that Biden is the most sure thing to beat Trump and that's all that matters right now. Progressivism is taking a back seat to rescuing our democracy from the nightmare scenario that is the Trump - McConnell - Gorsuch/Kavanaugh axis of evil.
Firsthand information about why Warren didn’t get the votes that she deserved are two-pronged. As I pulled up to pick up a pizza with my Warren bumper sticker facing the pizza joint, four thirty something year old men began pointing and guffawing. I stared and glared back at them which cut through their ridiculous antics.
Last weekend when I canvassed for Warren, I met a woman in her late 80’s who got visibly upset when I reminded her that Warren was our state senator replying I know that. When I said that I would like to see a woman elected, she teared up knowing the impossible barriers that still face us.
Many people were simply confused about who to vote for so that we could eliminate the worse threat to democracy: Trump.
Ultimately, people voted more from their heads than their hearts.
If Joe Biden has the head and heart, he will select Warren as his running mate.
1
Dems chose a women in 2016 who was the best candidate. The field was split between many this year and one of the women did not emerge. I know Sexism is real but it was not the factor in this case.
This identity politics polemic is truly a disservice to the Times integrity by running as "analysis" instead of opinion. I'm a white male voter, who voted for Hillary in '16 and Amy Klobuchar in this primary. I would never vote for Warren. Her campaign in a nutshell: she staked out extreme left positions and then did a terrible job defending them. And as a result, she lost. My vote was never about whether she was a woman or not, nor was, I suspect, the votes of most others who did not support her. Times editors need to understand that it hurts the brand of this institution to keep insinuating that sexism is the root when a woman candidate loses, or racism is the root when a minority candidate loses. It's a tired, hoary argument in 2020.
Sanders has endorsed Medicare for All.
Warren endorsed Medicare for All.
She explained how we should pay for it. He did not
He is one of two candidates left. She was forced to drop out because of tepid support.
Draw your own conclusions.
23
Sanders is the kind of Democratic candidate prevalent into the 60’s. Now there’s no difference except for Bernie. He needs to get mean to win.
@Shiloh 2012 Warren had all the appeal of an associate principal telling the kids to quiet down for the Star Spangled Banner, during a pep rally.
I agree with you about Sanders, but like Trump, he's a better salesperson.
1
@Shiloh 2012 I would argue that there was much more in the way that stopped Elizabeth Warren than her gender.
She was running as a progressive candidate, and the progressives have strict standards (coined "purity tests") and they turned to Elizabeth Warren and saw the following:
1. falsely claimed Native American status to the texas bar (confirmed by the Washington post)
2. Elizabeth Warren was running on only grass root funding until she wasn't. Whatever her reasons, however justified, that turned away some Progressives wary of big money in politics.
3. Elizabeth Warren was a republican until 1996 and was known to be a "diehard" conservative who at least at the time, believed in laisez-faire economics. Now, this most definitely could have evolved, but again...a pause for progressives.
4. In some ways, from what I've read, heard and seen...a turning point in her campaign with progressive support came from her unsubstantiated statements regarding Bernie being a sexist during a private conversation. This turned many progressives away because they simply didn't believe her given their knowledge of Bernie Sanders' positions and efforts to help elect Hillary.
Now, they also applauded her take down of Bloomberg and right up until recently...people really wanted the progressive "dream ticket" of her and Bernie. Progressives considered them the "mom and dad" of their movement...until this election.
So, I think there's more to this than that.
2
I see a lot of wins - in politics and in business. It's slow no doubt, but we should recognize the momentum. If a democrat wins the november election, there will be a female VP - I don't think this in doubt. And because of the age of the likely president, there is a real chance that in 2024, that female VP will be viewed as the incumbent running for president. The current front runners are more a reflection of the democrat's having to re-build their bench up through local and state governments. And that re-build was accomplished mainly with women and people of color.
And the only way to lose that momentum is getting wiped out in the 2020 elections - president, but probably more importantly house and senate.
2
Was it always going to be a man?
Is that a serious question?
Last time it was a woman. In 2016. Not that long ago. Remember?
And, she won a majority of the votes in the general election, by far. It’s her own fault that she didn’t campaign in the states she lost, and lost by not that much.
For what it’s worth (and the woe is me stories do seem impervious to actual reality), the last time a white male was the nominee of the Democratic party was... 2004. The last time a man led the Democratic party in the House was... 2002.
So spare us the pity party.
At least in the Democratic party, women have leadership roles (you ARE aware that the effective leader of the Democratic party is the woman Nancy Pelosi, right?), can get elected, and are taken seriously.
Republicans? Maybe not. But they are a moral and ethical cesspool... not sure why anyone expects much of them.
Perhaps one of the reasons that women don’t recognize their progress is all the female-centric political organizing that they do. Women’s marches, women’s political organization... men don’t do that, not anymore. When you engage in sexism (and gender specific organization is, by definition, sexist) you tend to see sexism everywhere.
Finally, it’s worth noting the article’s finding that more WOMEN think women are unelectable than men.
Men think women are perfectly electable. So please stop whinging and run for office.
54
I’m a registered Republican who will vote for Trump this fall over any progressive/socialist candidate on the left, and I’m about as chauvinistic as you can get. I say all this as a backdrop of what I’ll say next: I would happily vote for a woman who was qualified and capable — in her own right — for the office she seeks. No coasting on Bubba’s coattails; no carpetbagging; no claiming non-existent Native American status, and taking the slot away from someone who truly is Native American and more deserving; nope, none of that, period. So, as you so blithely refer to my kind as an unlearned, unwashed, deplorable Neanderthal, please know I was hoping Amy Klobuchar would enter the race well before before she even knew she would. Why? Because she was one of the very few Democrats who came to the Senate Kavanaugh hearings with the intelligence and seriousness to match the occasion, calmly asking her reasoned questions rather than grandstanding or acting like a hyena, as others did. It was no surprise to me she flat out outperformed all the other candidates at each debate. . . for anyone listening. Unfortunately not enough Democrats were listening. I hope she is Biden’s VP pick. So you do not denigrate me when you doubt whether my side or my gender wants a qualified woman to hold the reins of power; you denigrate yourselves.
17
Thank you John for your rational viewpoint. It’s unfair to lump all conservatives into deplorable folder.Klobuchar has a lot of merits and always come across as fairly well reasoned (exception- comb salad and appears pretty prickly with staff). Please do review the rankings of drama exhibited by Republicans during the Kavanaugh and Impeachment hearings and admit they were shameful and a scourge on decent democratic procedures. Thank you
@John
Thanks for the market correction.
Women make up half of the population. Instead of complaining, do something if you really care about it as a majority. You live in a democracy with one person one vote.
7
The funny part is, if you ask Republicans if they would vote for Nikki Haley, i would expect a great majority would.
Its not about being a woman.
Its about being a great candidate.
A shame the Democrats keep putting forward lousy candidates.
27
@G Nikki Haley, who has sold her soul for a spot on the ticket with a wannabe dictator, is probably the most likely first woman President in the U.S.
This assumes we will still be a democracy in 2024, a decidedly iffy proposition.
1
It was a woman last time. Remember? So now it’s a man. No big deal.
13
@Judith P
It is a big deal. We didn't really have a woman last time, because she did not become President. You need to get enough electoral votes to become President. It's like what Senator Klobuchar said- if there was no sexism, we could play the game "Name your Favorite Female President".
It was always going to be a man because the people who constantly tell us that we need more women in leadership roles all decided to vote for an old white guy, just like they did in 2016. I don’t want to hear it anymore from progressives. They are always telling us we need more diversity, we need a new generation, we need more women, we need more LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ people. But when it comes to voting, what do they do? They vote against women (Warren), they vote against gays (Buttigieg), they vote against people of color (Harris, Booker).
So just stop it with the “why is it always a man” bit. It’s always a man because that’s who progressives vote for in the end, too.
5
Hilary Clinton beat our several men for the nomination and went on to win the popular vote in 2016
11
@John don’t forget she also won the popular vote in the primaries in 2008. Enough with the misogynistic banter.
NYT: would you have included the deceptive "voice shaking" part of this sentence if the speaker were a man? I think not.
One of the hardest parts of this,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren, her voice shaking as she announced the end of her campaign on Thursday, “is all those little girls who are going to have to wait four more years. That’s going to be hard.”
14
@feministvoter Her voice was shaking. Sorry, it's just the truth.
I think so! Can you imagine leaving that out if Sanders, Biden or any man showed emotion at all? Even decades ago, Muskie made front page news when the press thought they saw tears rolling down the candidate’s cheeks (he said they were melted snowflakes). Any candidate... ANY... that flashes a little humanity would have it thoroughly covered. Whether it be understandable (Warren) or despicable (Trump’s general depravity).
Same as it ever was.
3
Oh, so NOW you notice what a great campaign she ran, NY Times. Too bad you didn't give her the coverage she deserved, instead of breathlessly reporting every T. Tweet -- and by the way you sure helped put him in office. I wish she'd stayed in the fight. Looks like the Democratic party pressured her to get out of the way of Joe Biden. And by the way, Joe, I remember the Anita Hill hearings in case you've so deeply into cognitive decline you've forgotten. Or we can go for the misogynistic bullying Bernie bros. and Bernie Sanders who refuses to release his medical report. Old white guys.
Never.
Welcome to despair.
4
We cannot seem to get past our folkloric archetypes.
A peculiar elderly man seeking to enlighten and advise is revered as a sage, whereas a peculiar elderly woman doing the same thing is reviled as a witch, often spelled with a “b.”
Not to mention any names.
3
Dan Pfeifer interviewed on Kara Swisher's podcast Recode Decode discussed the Republican maneuverings to keep a conservative, right-wing, white, male minority in power in America. I think we need to get our heads out of the sand and see what is happening right in front of us.
3
@Mary Republicans don’t have a statistically relevant impact on the Democratic nomination.