Do Democrats want to win? Maybe they should nominate more men for office.

The Hill ^ | 10/31/25 | Matt Lewis

[MinorityRepublican]

In an interview last weekend, Kamala Harris predicted that someday there would be a woman in the White House. She then hinted it might be her: “I am not done,” she said.

To which America collectively sighed, “Please, for the love of God, don’t do this to us again!”

I say this as someone who rode the Harris rollercoaster. I was skeptical at first, then briefly impressed when she didn’t implode in the summer of 2024. Ultimately, we received a brutal reminder of why President Trump is still the equivalent of a political wrecking ball.

But this isn’t just about Harris. I’m just going to say the thing I probably shouldn’t say: If Democrats really believe Trump and MAGA represent an existential threat to liberal democracy, they should try something different next time. Like, nominating a man.

Before you start sketching out your think piece, I am not saying this from a place of misogyny. I supported Sarah Palin back in 2008 (a confession that ages as well as milk) and pulled the lever for Nikki Haley in the 2024 primary.

My point is simpler and sadder: There’s a growing sense that the Democratic Party has, to borrow James Carville’s phrase, “too many preachy females.” In a political era obsessed with toughness and masculinity, that perception is electoral kryptonite.

For example, one participant in a Third Way focus group conducted in 2024 said, “I think being a masculine leader is, like, outlawed in the Democratic Party right now.”

[nitzy]

NO!!!!!

Black women. That’s what they need more of.

Preferably gay, fat black women. That’s a winning strategy.

[bankwalker]

Caledonias!!

[central_va]

What’s a man?

[Verginius Rufus]

Too bad KJP was born in Haiti. Maybe they could nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson (but then she would have to give up her SC seat).

Maybe go with nominating the first East Asian female--Mazie Hirono.

[Dr. Sivana]

Preferably gay, fat black women. That’s a winning strategy.

Stacy Abrams!

(From Perplexity.ai:)
Stacey Abrams is considered to be a lesbian. Information from multiple sources indicates she is recognized as a black lesbian political figure. Articles highlight her identity as a black lesbian and her contributions as a political leader and activist, noting her role as an LGBT+ figure without focusing disproportionately on her sexuality but acknowledging it as part of her identity.​

While Stacey Abrams herself has not publicly emphasized her sexual orientation in all contexts, and media often focus on her political achievements, it is accurate that she is identified as a lesbian in several credible reports and discussions related to LGBT+ representation in politics.​​

Therefore, Stacy Abrams is indeed a lesbian according to publicly available information and recognition in LGBT+ political spheres.

[j.havenfarm]

Just so. There’s men and then there’s men. Tim Walz, Pete Buttigieg are not the answer. Creepy guys like Newsom aren’t the answer. Neither are fat stupid guys like Pritzger. I fear Andy Beshear. I think he could pull it off, but on the other hand I don’t think a “moderate” can get the nomination

[MinorityRepublican]

I fear Andy Beshear. I think he could pull it off,

No. He's the opposite of Bill Clinton. No charisma. He's a bore.

[Liz]

Black women candidates. That’s what Democrats need more of.
Preferably gay, fat black women. That’s a winning strategy.

---

But..........make their hair and nails are done.....or its no go.

[MtnClimber]

No more Karen the Scolders?

[Bullish]

SShhh... Don’t help them, what’s wrong with this dumb writer? They need more trans candidates.

MORE TRANS!