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 faltered because she is a D.S.
No, it failed because she’s crazy, annoying and a horrible human being.
EW is no Margaret Thatcher.
Anti-Indigenous Bias
The Old Pu**y Card!
Don’t know. Is ‘shrew’ a gender these days?
I think it failed because of her lack of gender.
Sure, blame the voters. And when a movie doesn’t make money, it’s the fault of the audience. We’re not good enough for the elites, so we need a different system where the common person’s opinions don’t matter.
Her voice was like fingernails on a chalkboard. Her mannerism were like one of those inflatable tube men that are outside the Jiffy Lube. Her message was warmed over Marxism. Every time she opened her mouth she contradicted the previous sentence.
Gee I don’t know why the Dems didn’t like her. She was the perfect candidate. They must just be a bunch of Indian hating sexists.
Trump eliminated Pocahontas long ago.
I googled antonym for ‘attractive’ and Warren’s photo came up.
Plus she is a lying stinking nut case,
I think it failed because of her lack of gender.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Perfect.
Good grief. No reason to go past the headline.
Needed to be quoted...
It failed because she’s a fake Indian. She scammed the affirmative action system to get tenure at Harvard. After getting called out for that, she ran for president. No surprise that she failed.
It faltered because she is a D.S.
><
Exactly.
She’s not a grammar term. She doesn’t have “gender”.
She always looked to me like she had fallen and broken her gender.
Must have been painful.
I know it’s painful for me to take note of it.
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.