Posted on 03/06/2020 1:28:20 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The Democratic presidential race has had as many twists and turns as a Formula 1 race track. However, as we head for the finish line, the race has taken the shape many predicted it would before it began.
A former vice president and favorite of the establishment wing is competing with the runner-up in the 2016 campaign and favorite of the radical wing. Flavor du jour candidates have had their day, but are now eliminated. So too, candidates who tried to run in the space between the liberal establishment and the far left.
Therefore, we need not resort to special explanations for the current state of the race. For example, we need not point to alleged sexism as the reason Elizabeth Warren failed to make it to the finals, as Warren herself has done.
In fact, it is those who want to blame (or credit) sexism who have the explaining to do. They need to explain why “sexist” Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016.
At the micro level, Warren had pluses and minuses as a candidate. On the plus side, she debated well, gave good speeches, is intelligent, and has substantial experience in the Senate.
On the minus side, she has an authenticity problem, having falsely claimed to be part Indian, among other lies. She also waffled on the key issue of health insurance. In addition, in spite of her best efforts to take on a “down home” persona, she undoubtedly is a member of the elite.
Perhaps another minus was the perception that Warren struck Democrats as the type of candidate who would be quick to attribute lack of popularity in part to sexism by Democrats.
But I believe Warren lost the race at what I call the macro level. The logic of the race, as described above, was always against her.
Returning to the micro level, I acknowledge that Warren lost votes because some Democrats, including certain female Dems I know, found her grating and maybe unlikable. Often during the debates, she seemed liked the student who knew how to spell tomato, but didn’t know how to stop.
It’s possible that there’s a gender component to complaints that Warren is grating or unlikable. But this sort of charge isn’t confined to female candidates. In 2016, for example, plenty of voters found Ted Cruz grating or unlikable, I believe. Moreover, I don’t recall hearing anyone describe Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, or Kamala Harris in such terms. But I did hear it of Bill de Blasio.
The numbers fail to back up claims that Warren was the victim of sexism. In Massachusetts, exit polling indicates that she lost the female vote by 10 points. She trailed Biden by 12 points among all voters. Numbers I came across from other states on Super Tuesday suggested approximately the same four point “gender gap.”
Given that Warren played the identity politics card, it’s normal that she would do somewhat better with female voters than with males. I believe that Warren’s pitching of her gender and the desire of some women to see a female president can easily explain a four point gap.
It’s possible, at least in theory, that some female Democratic voters cast gender-based votes against Warren. However, it seems to me that if Warren were the victim of sexist voting, we would see a substantially larger gender gap in her vote totals than the one that seems to occurred.
I can’t think of anyone who tried harder to win the 2020 Democratic nomination than Elizabeth Warren. Now that her run is over, it’s natural that she feels frustrated. She doesn’t want to blame herself for falling flat, nor does she want to concede that the logic of the race was always against her.
Fortunately, Warren’s identity-based framework gives her a handy excuse. It may work for her, but the rest of us shouldn’t buy it.
It failed because Bernie was hogging her lane and there wasn’t enough oxygen for two loonies on the left. If Sanders cardiacs out she would easily be going toe to toe with Biden.
This left her with a base of educated suburban woman. Which is a key component for the general election, but not sufficient to get you above water in the Dem primary.
Really the headline should be “Would fauxcahontas have even made it to Super Tuesday if she wasn’t a woman? (because she’d be polling 3%)
We took a gander at her gender, and goosed her.
She was promising “deep structural changes to the United States” without really saying what those were. Being wary of that is not misogyny.
No. Her mouth.
The dogs don’t like the dog food.
People don’t like liars.
It failed because Democrats are sexist misogynists. Democrats are the only ones who voted in the Primaries, so clearly Democrats hate women.
All of the above. Amazing she got as far as she did.
Did Bloomberg, Buttijeg, Beto, Steyer, Yang fail because of their weewee?
I believe her “unlikeability factor” was far more the cause than does the author.
People do not vote for people they don’t like, just ask Michael Bloomberg.
Perhaps they didn’t believe in what Lieawatha believes, or aren’t really sure what she does believe because she changes her stories so much.
First, Leftist dogma is 95% pure BS, a fact which some people on the Rat side are waking up to. . . and she delivered it in a condescending, annoying manner.
On top of that, she was an obvious phony.
I believe the candidate she revealed herself to be just might cause her to get beaten in her next Senate race.
She failed because she was and is a pandering fool who will do or say anything to win.
She should’ve never been in the body politic in the first place, THE LYING POS. It would save us a lot of $ and BS.
On the minus side, she has an authenticity problem, having falsely claimed to be part Indian Injun, among other lies. She also waffled on the key issue of health insurance. In addition, in spite of her best efforts to take on a “down home” persona, she undoubtedly is a member of the elite delusional self-important establishment.
That's a little better. Never, ever compliment a Rat, even if it is deserved.
Among other factors, she told too many lies, crazy lies, lies that could easily be exposed.
The “Patsy Schroeder” effect-— creates harridans with screeching looney voices and points of view, along with nearly continuous lying about their background, and who and what they actually believe, depending on who is asking.
No one 1.) believes her or 2.) would trust her as a CIC or even a VP and 3.) did I say she lies... a lot? People can sense this and observe it unless they are complete fruit loops, or paid off.
She’ll show up again somewhere... count on it. Squawks-a hontas shall pitch new tepee after she cleans it of the deposits of crapola, everywhere.
no... it failed because she is a dumb ass....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.