Why are the Dem female candidates doing so poorly in early polls? (thought, radical)

[Smash255]

Polls early on are heavily influenced by name recognition more than anything else. Biden and Sanders are much more well known than any of the other candidates (male or female), so it is no surprise they lead the pack. Harris and to a lesser extent Warren are polling in the same range as the next set of male candidates that aren't quite as well known as Biden and Sanders.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Buckeye77

Fair enough, but the difference is that Hillary's campaign was primarily based on her gender, not on her ideas or positions on the issues. It was all about her being a woman, and it was her turn. Mitt/Al/John did not run on being a man.

Hillary didnt run on being a women, she just didnt shy away from being one and carrying about womens issues.

[Grlzrl]

Originally Posted by WMak70

As a man, I will tell you the reason no one wants to admit. There is a mindset in this country that only men are equipped and capable of handling this position. Not only do a lot of men think this way, we all saw woman after woman who turned their backs on their fellow females and who even gravitated toward a woman hater like Donald Trump, rather than support one of their own.

Women think they have come so far, but the mentality we are seeing from others, especially women, shows that women are being held back by centuries old thinking......women should walk 10 paces to the rear and have dinner on the table when the man gets home.

It is never going to change until women get some courage and trust in themselves, and men stop being Neanderthals in their thinking. I would gladly support a woman President, after all, look at the lousy job we men have done throughout our history.

Wow.

Originally Posted by NW Crow

New Mayor of Chicago Lori Lightfoot might give it a go in future.

YOu know what? As much as I disagree with her politics, I like HER. Because she, unlike almost all the women in the primary so far, seems sincere and able to rise above politics.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Hillary didnt run on being a women, she just didnt shy away from being one and carrying about womens issues.

lol

You Democrats still don't get it. It doesn't matter if it's a man, a woman, a black or white, a gay or straight person. VOTERS DON'T care about that stuff. They care about the economy, immigration, healthcare. They don't based on color, genitalia or who you sleep with. Only the person who recognizes that will win. Trump recognized it. He will win again. Doesn't matter who you run.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Grlzrl

You Democrats still don't get it. It doesn't matter if it's a man, a woman, a black or white, a gay or straight person. VOTERS DON'T care about that stuff. They care about the economy, immigration, healthcare. They don't based on color, genitalia or who you sleep with. Only the person who recognizes that will win. Trump recognized it. He will win again. Doesn't matter who you run.

So you admit the voters thought Hillary was right since she got 3 million more votes, thanks.

[petch751]

They're just repeating the same party line. Nothing new here.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by WMak70

As a man, I will tell you the reason no one wants to admit. There is a mindset in this country that only men are equipped and capable of handling this position. Not only do a lot of men think this way, we all saw woman after woman who turned their backs on their fellow females and who even gravitated toward a woman hater like Donald Trump, rather than support one of their own.

Women think they have come so far, but the mentality we are seeing from others, especially women, shows that women are being held back by centuries old thinking......women should walk 10 paces to the rear and have dinner on the table when the man gets home.

It is never going to change until women get some courage and trust in themselves, and men stop being Neanderthals in their thinking. I would gladly support a woman President, after all, look at the lousy job we men have done throughout our history.

What a bunch of garbage.

To assume that women should stick together, based strictly on gender, is insulting. To vote for someone because they are a woman is just as bad as not voting for someone because they are.

Your whole post reeks of misogyny - women held back, centuries old thinking, women must get courage, women must learn to trust themselves. That attitude is worse than the one you are decrying.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by WMak70

Or, maybe you need to pinch yourself to wake up. Maybe YOU have confidence that a woman could be our President, but statistics and history tell us you are pretty much alone in that regard. Your fellow women "say" they are progressive and forward thinking, but the past election told us a different story. Women were able to overlook absolute proof that Donald Trump is a low life woman hater and user, and they still thought he was a better choice than an intelligent, strong, successful, educated, experienced lady like Hillary Clinton.

You can paint it that she was the most disliked politician all you want, but the core reason for her losing was her sex and her perceived baggage...….but somehow, Donald Trump's baggage didn't matter, did it ?

So as a woman, I should vote for how you've decided I should vote, because the candidate is a woman? Do you know how insulting you sound?

I hate the Clintons (yes, both of them) for a host of reasons. I find Hillary stupid, weak, ignorant, arrogant, deceitful, criminal and unaccomplished. If she were a man, I'd think the same. And to say that I should ignore my own reasons for disliking her, and vote for her because we are both women is disgusting.

[emm74]

I think this is a big factor - the male candidates are getting far more media coverage than the female candidates. Bernie Sanders alone got more mentions than all 4 of the major female candidates put together

https://twitter.com/California90250/...22787916754944

[jpdivola]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sour...55707210545241

To counter somewhat, Buttigieg and Bernies coverage is in part driven by the fact they say yes to more media interviews.

Bernie did a Fox News town hall (which in an off itself generates coverage), Buttigieg says yes to pretty much everything.

Plus, AOC a backbench rep with no formal power basically mints media coverage. While former governors like hickenlooper and inslee languish in obscurity.

[emm74]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sour...55707210545241

To push back, Buttigieg and Bernies coverage is in part driven by the fact they say yes to more media interviews.

Bernie did a Fox News town hall (which in an off itself generates coverage), Buttigieg says yes to pretty much everything.

You can argue with the strategy of being more selective, and I'd say that polling would suggest that it's not a great idea. But my response still answered the question - for whatever reason, they get less media attention and that impacts their numbers.

And while I agree that getting out there all the time does drive up numbers, I would venture to guess that Buttigieg gets more offers to say yes to than many, perhaps most or all of the women. I'd say Beto used to get more offers, and was definitely out there more, but maybe he's getting fewer asks now, it's hard to say as far as that but his visibility has clearly dropped off.

I do think people will start to peal off after July, once the first two rounds of debates are held. My prediction is that by August, they won't need two rounds anymore, there will be a small enough number of candidates to keep it to a single round.