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.
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.
Good summation here. They are not doing well because none of them are good candidates. If I had to pick one it would be Warren, but 'pocahantas' probably doomed her. She also shares Hillary's 'relatability' problem.
I still say Harris will be doomed by her past as a hard-nosed prosecutor once things really take off. The 'black lives matter' people will not be impressed, and it will kill her ability to use ID politics. What should be her chief strength will become a weakness.
Dem female candidates are all tarred by the Hillary brush. Hillary was/is such an awful candidate, that most folks assume that all Dem females are like her.
Tulsi Gabbard is the exception, but at this point she doesn't have the star power to gain the nomination
The Democratic candidates so far are just awful, god awful. The women ones are the bottom of the barrel, I reluctantly voted for Hillary, thinking (well knowing) she is a better candidate and would be a better president than Trump, but there is no way I would vote for any Democrat woman candidate as of now over Trump. So far only Biden has my vote, and that is even a maybe.
Good summation here. They are not doing well because none of them are good candidates. If I had to pick one it would be Warren, but 'pocahantas' probably doomed her. She also shares Hillary's 'relatability' problem.
I still say Harris will be doomed by her past as a hard-nosed prosecutor once things really take off. The 'black lives matter' people will not be impressed, and it will kill her ability to use ID politics. What should be her chief strength will become a weakness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye77
Dem female candidates are all tarred by the Hillary brush. Hillary was/is such an awful candidate, that most folks assume that all Dem females are like her.
Tulsi Gabbard is the exception, but at this point she doesn't have the star power to gain the nomination
I agree with both of these posters.
In an overall sense, and in my own opinion, it seems the women who have announced are far too eager to court the identity politics vote. One of the biggest things I'd like to see would be a sense that a woman would be capable of leading the country, not the squeaky-wheel citizens.
Dem female candidates are all tarred by the Hillary brush. Hillary was/is such an awful candidate, that most folks assume that all Dem females are like her.
I suspect there maybe something to this point. But, isn't this basically the definition of sexism. Mitt Romney, Al Gore, John Kerry and many others were all bad candidates, but the response wasn't to tar all of the subsequent male candidates.
I suspect there maybe something to this point. But, isn't this basically the definition of sexism. Mitt Romney, Al Gore, John Kerry and many others were all bad candidates, but the response wasn't to tar all of the subsequent male candidates.
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.
They've got no charisma.
Charisma is a male quality.
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.
