I find it funny, that you still buy into this narrative. Most western countries and many countries were women are considered to be discriminated more than in western countries had women leading governments. This includes far right parties such as in Italy.
Neither Hillary nor Harris lost because they were women. They lost because they had political positions driving away progressives and presented themselves in an uncharismatic and “high-and mighty” way that alienated the conservative bases they tried pondering to. If you want to win you have to at least pretend to care about normal people, not belittle them.
Can you reference statements or interactions where these women represented themselves as high and mighty?
Isn’t part of trump’s appeal to his base (regardless of them saying “he’s just like us”) that he claims to know more about, or be better than someone else, at literally everything?
For #2, Trump has a way of talking and carrying himself that makes him seem obviously like not one of the political elites around him. His plans are also wildly different than theirs (to the point of stupidity) and he seems ready to upend existing systems, which working-class people who those systems haven’t helped like. Hillary was one of the most establishment candidates to ever exist, and Harris kept herself as basically 100% aligned to Biden during the election (and to other classic establishment Republicans like the Cheney).
People also seem to forget that Kamala had no primary to prove her chops, and had to work with less time to campaign due to Biden’s stupidity. While not a great candidate, she got fucked over by the DNC’s myopic habit of anointing candidates.
It’s hard to say how much that was a factor. We know that the campaign’s staff were instructed to record voter concerns about Gaza as “no response,” but independent polling organizations found that most voters ranked the issue well below the usual, immigration and the economy. IIRC, only in Michigan was the number of protest voters high enough to perhaps swing the election.
Fascists want a strong-man leader, so yes, he and they produce photos of him with rippling muscles, riding a wind-swept horse, and while nailed to Jesus’ cross all at the same time.
But they don’t consider him an “elite” either. He’s supposed to drain the swamp, remember? They think he’s out of the establishment and will destroy the system that took affordable homes from them with his big, strong, racist muscles.
Now, I don’t think any of this is inconsistent, but even if you could find one, yeah, the common person is not a well-informed, forged in the fires of philosophical rigor, politically strategic agent of the people’s will—they believe a lot of irrational things. This is why the leopard eats their face so often.
The real difference between the parties is that the republicans have a story. They sell snake oil and salves to cure your ailing economy, while the Democrats sell… I mean, nothing, really. They sell the idea that things are just fine as they are, something nobody believes.
So it sounds like they are okay with a man being high and mighty, but a woman displaying any kind of competence or qualification is unacceptable grandstanding.
It’s almost as if what appeals to right wing voters doesn’t necessarily appeal to left wing voters. Those right wing voters don’t like women appearing to know more than men, but do like men who carry themselves as of they know everything and can do no wrong.
Can you reference statements or interactions where these women represented themselves as high and mighty?
The article has no direct quotes from Harris or Hillary. The closet thing I could find was a complaint that for the month of October, Harris appeared with Mark Cuban more often than the UAW leader.
I find it funny, that you still buy into this narrative. Most western countries and many countries were women are considered to be discriminated more than in western countries had women leading governments. This includes far right parties such as in Italy.
Neither Hillary nor Harris lost because they were women. They lost because they had political positions driving away progressives and presented themselves in an uncharismatic and “high-and mighty” way that alienated the conservative bases they tried pondering to. If you want to win you have to at least pretend to care about normal people, not belittle them.
Two questions.
Can you reference statements or interactions where these women represented themselves as high and mighty?
Isn’t part of trump’s appeal to his base (regardless of them saying “he’s just like us”) that he claims to know more about, or be better than someone else, at literally everything?
For #2, Trump has a way of talking and carrying himself that makes him seem obviously like not one of the political elites around him. His plans are also wildly different than theirs (to the point of stupidity) and he seems ready to upend existing systems, which working-class people who those systems haven’t helped like. Hillary was one of the most establishment candidates to ever exist, and Harris kept herself as basically 100% aligned to Biden during the election (and to other classic establishment Republicans like the Cheney).
People also seem to forget that Kamala had no primary to prove her chops, and had to work with less time to campaign due to Biden’s stupidity. While not a great candidate, she got fucked over by the DNC’s myopic habit of anointing candidates.
She also had Biden financially backing a genocide, with no pushback from her, to contend with.
It’s hard to say how much that was a factor. We know that the campaign’s staff were instructed to record voter concerns about Gaza as “no response,” but independent polling organizations found that most voters ranked the issue well below the usual, immigration and the economy. IIRC, only in Michigan was the number of protest voters high enough to perhaps swing the election.
People just actively didn’t go vote, all across the country.
So your argument is that Trump doesn’t present himself as high and mighty? The dude had AI Photoshop him as the fucking pope…
Fascists want a strong-man leader, so yes, he and they produce photos of him with rippling muscles, riding a wind-swept horse, and while nailed to Jesus’ cross all at the same time.
But they don’t consider him an “elite” either. He’s supposed to drain the swamp, remember? They think he’s out of the establishment and will destroy the system that took affordable homes from them with his big, strong, racist muscles.
Now, I don’t think any of this is inconsistent, but even if you could find one, yeah, the common person is not a well-informed, forged in the fires of philosophical rigor, politically strategic agent of the people’s will—they believe a lot of irrational things. This is why the leopard eats their face so often.
The real difference between the parties is that the republicans have a story. They sell snake oil and salves to cure your ailing economy, while the Democrats sell… I mean, nothing, really. They sell the idea that things are just fine as they are, something nobody believes.
So it sounds like they are okay with a man being high and mighty, but a woman displaying any kind of competence or qualification is unacceptable grandstanding.
It’s almost as if what appeals to right wing voters doesn’t necessarily appeal to left wing voters. Those right wing voters don’t like women appearing to know more than men, but do like men who carry themselves as of they know everything and can do no wrong.
I know it wasn’t you that made the point, but…
Yep… It was because they were women.
Except it wasn’t, but it seems you’re not here to say anything productive.
Nice link, but the prompt for number 1 was…
The article has no direct quotes from Harris or Hillary. The closet thing I could find was a complaint that for the month of October, Harris appeared with Mark Cuban more often than the UAW leader.
It also has some pretty dumb takes.
That’s gonna be a ‘no’ for me. Try again?