This has fundamentally zero bearing on the actual outcome of the Presidential election; moreover there are many less female candidates seeking office in the first place. Yes, sexism exists — that’s not in dispute —but sexist voters were never in reach in the first place, whether it was Harris, Biden, Hillary, or Obama.
A majority of registered voters are women.
A majority of actual voters are consistently women.
There is just as much risk of women getting pissed off and protesting and staying home because they are tired for voting male candidates.
There is zero evidence a woman cannot win. You just can’t run inauthentic consultancy-crafted non-charismatic candidates, and BOTH Hillary and Kamala were. Mind you, the same holds true for men. Go ahead and just try to run Tim Kaine and see what happens, I dare you.
This made all the more clear by the fact that the vast vast vast majority of misogynistic sexist bigots are already a firm part of the conservative maga base —And so they were Never. Up. For. Grabs in the first place.
In Christianity, the bible forbids women from exercising authority over men in the church - they are forbidden from any leadership role within the church. This begs the question: what makes you think Christians will vote to elect a woman to the highest level of leadership this country has, into a position where she can make decisions affecting not just one church, but every single church across the US?
28% of congress is female, 50.5% of the general population and their ratio gets higher in the average age group that corresponds to congress’. The percentage of people enthusiastic about a female president is down since 2015, a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.
We’re not talking about convincing a population of unbiased, nonprejudiced people. We’re talking about convincing a nation full of hateful assholes. A lot of republican voters will mobilize solely to keep women out of power.
In 1937, the first time the public was asked by Gallup about its willingness to vote for a female president, the question included the caveat “if she were qualified in every other respect.” Gallup removed that phrase, with its implications, and tried a new version in 1945, asking, “If the party whose candidate you most often support nominated a woman for President of the United States, would you vote for her if she seemed best qualified for the job?” The results remained the same, with about one-third saying yes.
In 1948, the country was split on a new version of this question, which identified the woman candidate as qualified, but not “best” qualified. The final wording became settled in 1958 and has been asked repeatedly since. Large gains were made over the 1970’s and the proportion answering yes has continued to rise, reaching 95% in the most recent poll.
Americans may say they are willing to vote for a woman, but when asked to assess the willingness of others, people have not been as optimistic about women’s chances of winning the presidency. In 1984, when NBC asked likely voters if they were ready to elect a woman president, only 17% said yes. Substantial shares of the population have remained skeptical, though the most recent poll found the lowest proportion who believe the country is not yet ready.
I’ve got a relatively small sample size, but considering the alternative I dont think its worth grandstanding on your soapbox for another 4-8 years just to trot out another losing horse.
Instead of being a gatekeeping sexist, I’m going to continue to reiterate (for lack of evidence and also because it’s the right thing) that sex / gender of the candidate does not matter in the slightest, and the only thing that matters are their policies, their authenticity, and their charisma — male, or female.
Also because there hasn’t been a lick of evidence to suggest Harris lost because she’s a woman. Also because, as I pointed out and you conveniently ignored: All actual sexists were never reachable votes for Democrats in the first place.
We don’t need them, and we don’t fucking want them.
This has fundamentally zero bearing on the actual outcome of the Presidential election; moreover there are many less female candidates seeking office in the first place. Yes, sexism exists — that’s not in dispute —but sexist voters were never in reach in the first place, whether it was Harris, Biden, Hillary, or Obama.
A majority of registered voters are women.
A majority of actual voters are consistently women.
There is just as much risk of women getting pissed off and protesting and staying home because they are tired for voting male candidates.
There is zero evidence a woman cannot win. You just can’t run inauthentic consultancy-crafted non-charismatic candidates, and BOTH Hillary and Kamala were. Mind you, the same holds true for men. Go ahead and just try to run Tim Kaine and see what happens, I dare you.
This made all the more clear by the fact that the vast vast vast majority of misogynistic sexist bigots are already a firm part of the conservative maga base —And so they were Never. Up. For. Grabs in the first place.
In Christianity, the bible forbids women from exercising authority over men in the church - they are forbidden from any leadership role within the church. This begs the question: what makes you think Christians will vote to elect a woman to the highest level of leadership this country has, into a position where she can make decisions affecting not just one church, but every single church across the US?
28% of congress is female, 50.5% of the general population and their ratio gets higher in the average age group that corresponds to congress’. The percentage of people enthusiastic about a female president is down since 2015, a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.
We’re not talking about convincing a population of unbiased, nonprejudiced people. We’re talking about convincing a nation full of hateful assholes. A lot of republican voters will mobilize solely to keep women out of power.
Now intersect that with actual reachable swing-voters and Democrats.
Like I said: that tracks for core dyed-in-the-wool MAGA trash that we will never win nor want beneath our banner.
Let’s not make Faustian bargains, shall we?
Edit: Also, your facts are just incorrect, as well as interpretation:
To make it even more clear for you: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/madame-president-changing-attitudes-about-woman-president
I’ve got a relatively small sample size, but considering the alternative I dont think its worth grandstanding on your soapbox for another 4-8 years just to trot out another losing horse.
Instead of being a gatekeeping sexist, I’m going to continue to reiterate (for lack of evidence and also because it’s the right thing) that sex / gender of the candidate does not matter in the slightest, and the only thing that matters are their policies, their authenticity, and their charisma — male, or female.
Also because there hasn’t been a lick of evidence to suggest Harris lost because she’s a woman. Also because, as I pointed out and you conveniently ignored: All actual sexists were never reachable votes for Democrats in the first place.
We don’t need them, and we don’t fucking want them.