Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The democratic party styles itself as the part of women. It is majority female by voters and its woke activist keep complaining about too many white men. Yet, it seems the Democratic rank and file prefer male candidates over female candidates. Biden and Bernie can possibly be explained by high name idea. But, why are less inexperienced candidates like Beto and Buttigieg doing well in polling?
Elizabeth Warren is probably too liberal for my tastes, but she isn't as far left as Bernie Sanders. She doesn't call herself a socialist. She is from middle america and focuses a lot on the struggles of working class Americans. Why isn't she seen as a more mainstream electable alternative to Bernie? Sure she is not "charismatic" in the traditional sense, but neither is Bernie.
Amy Klobachar is a relative centrist liberal on policy, talks about compromise/civility, is from the Midwest and has a longer record of than Buttigiege. But, she hasn't really gotten the magic ticket to win back the rust belt buzz that Buttigiege has.
Beto O'Rouke's claim to fame is losing a senate race and a few undistinguished terms in the house. And yet he is 3rd in some polls and has been among the leaders in fundraising.
Now yes, its too simply to argue it is just white male privilege or sexism plain and simple. The strongest polling women is a black/indian women. Governors Hickenlooper and Inslee have more executive experience than any of the other candidates and are tanking at the polls. Bloomberg already crashed a burned. There are no calls for an encore from Tim Kane or Matin O'Malley. Al Gore and John Kerry were both dismissed as uncharismatic/bad candidates despite their policy chops. Opposition to Buittiege/Sanders could be similarly dismissed as homophobic or anti-semetic.
It is still early, a lot can change. O'Rouke seems to be losing momentum. Buttigiege has a long way to go before he can be considered a serious candidate. But, it does appear democratic primary voters have a preference for male candidates.
Perhaps: 1) there is no preference for male candidates, just there are more male candidates and therefor more male candidates to break out (and falter). 2) People apply the central casting test when choosing a president. People prefer candidates that remind them of previous successful candidates. All our presidents have been male. It is easier to image O'Rouke as a Bobby Kennedy or Obama type figure. Joe Biden as a Bill Clinton type candidate. It is harder to imagine a female candidate imitating a previous president. 3) Voters are focusing on other voters perceptions of electability. They perceive a male candidate as having a better shot of defeating Trump. They personally have no issue voting for a women, but suspect other will.
Why are the Dem female candidates doing so poorly in early polls?
Because so far female candidates have failed to break through and grab the attention of the electorate. They'll either figure it out or they won't. If any of them figure it out, they may have a shot at the nomination. If none of them figure out how to resonate with liberal voters then the Democratic nominee will not be one of the female candidates this election cycle. End of story. It's not rocket science.
In addition to her thoughts, I think that since the Democrats already ran a woman in 2016 who lost, most of the party doesn't want to run another so soon afterward.
There are some other things too, but they all amount to similar beliefs. I do think there's a good chance a female VP will be selected though, and she would really help bolster the male nominee's chances of election. While others have been nominated before, I think the Democratic voters are ready now for a female Vice President.
It would be as much a first as Obama was, and Nancy Pelosi's leadership has paved the way for a woman as Vice President.
My belief is that Kamala Harris will break out eventually. Nor is she doing badly, as she is a respectable 3rd, or in some polls 4th, with two old white guys in the lead who will certainly drop when people start paying attention.
Elizabeth Warren is not taking off because she has made a fool of herself over and over again. That is just the reality. Once you put the helmet on and take the ride in the tank, there is no going back. She can save herself and everyone else a lot of time by throwing in the towel early.
To be honest, I don't know anything about Amy Klobachar, but...
A) That is probably part of the problem. She doesn't ring a bell even to those who follow politics. And...
B) By the way you describe her she had no chance whatsoever. This is now the party of Occasio-Cortez, Omar, O'Rourke, and a bunch of other people trying to out-lunatic each other. It is basically '72 all over gain, and a moderate liberal who wants to talk civilly is simply going nowhere fast.
Ditto the last for Tulsi Gabbard, by the way. Agree or disagree with her, she is as decent, patriotic woman that I as a Republican would give a chance. Therefore, she has none with her own.
Amy Klobuchar - The reports that show how terrible she treats her employees shows she has an extremely fake/hot-tempered personality and there's no telling how she would act under pressure in an executive capacity.
Tulsi Gabbard - She's way too anti-establishment with respect to her views on Foreign Policy, more so than even Bernie. Plus, she doesn't have a position with high enough visibility in Congress for the MSM to bother giving her the time of day.
Elizabeth Warren - Poor thing. Bernie has taken all of her wind. which was expected once he joined the race. Plus the whole "Pocahantas" ordeal was pretty embarassing.
Kamala Harris - She flip flops constantly when it comes to where she stands on policy (I.E. Medicare For All), and every other day people catch her in photo ops or videos where she's doing something to blatantly pander for votes based on identity politics.
Kristin Gillibrand - Everything about her (down to the hair, voice, movement, etc.) screams Hillary Clinton circa 1999.
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.
I still think its too early to write of the main women. Warren (not Sanders) has been the one who waded deepest in policy, Harris has had the best announcement/campaign stratefy thus far, and Klobuchar can fill the middle lane nicely if Biden falters or backs out. Each has geographic/demographic match in an early primary- Klobuchar as to the point Midwesterner in Iowa, Warren as neighboring senator to NH where Bernie caught fire in 2016, and Harris with a huge female AA presence in the SC primary.
Gabbard will not even win moderate Rs much less Democrats with her past support of conversion therapy or Assad appeasement.
Lets wait until atleast November before putting too much stock in any of the candidacies. And we really need atleast the first two primary contests under our belts to know how the women fare. I think Harris is the one with more of their own lane at the moment while Warren gains the most if another candidate (Bernie) falters.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WMak70
Here is one example of a woman, who is successful herself, not having confidence in another woman to run this country because she is not a "man".
They always fall back on their bible thumping to explain why men are superior !
You are welcome to speak for men but kindly refrain from telling women what they think and believe. The 2016 election was unique with Clinton as she is arguably the most disliked politician which certainly contributed to Trump’s win. People really cannot stand her and it has nothing to do with her gender. There is one candidate on the left that I would be okay with and it happens to be a woman.
Your cherry picked video doesn’t speak for most women and the small business owner interviewed does not reflect the beliefs of most American women voters. You are right to smack yourself for linking the nonsense video.
Why are the Dem female candidates doing so poorly in early polls?
Because so far female candidates have failed to break through and grab the attention of the electorate. They'll either figure it out or they won't. If any of them figure it out, they may have a shot at the nomination. If none of them figure out how to resonate with liberal voters then the Democratic nominee will not be one of the female candidates this election cycle. End of story. It's not rocket science.
To be honest it is still a bit to early to get excited about who is or isn't being pushed by the Dems. Right now, with so many candidates, each seems to be the upcoming God, but only for a day. When the first wound of debates are behind us, there will be plenty of time to figure out if any of the female candidates can build momentum. I doubt Warren will go far, not sure about some of the others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
