Although in fairness they were both centrists who pivoted more center, which imo is a recipe for disaster especially for women candidates who are just never going to capture significant rightwing votes. Kamala in particular started out really really strongly and lost more and more support as she gave up leftwing talking points
I think this is the critical point. Women candidates will continue to struggle with voters that are center to center-right, so a woman presidential candidate really needs to have broad appeal on the left to succeed. They can’t afford to lose many, if any, likely leftist or liberal voters. Both Harris and Clinton were deeply unpopular with the American Left. Many were willing to swallow their pride to vote for Harris, but then she refused to call a genocide a genocide, and many dropped their support in response. A female candidate cannot afford to alienate leftists on such a critical issue.
I don’t think you can hold those two specific candidates against women in general. Hilary Clinton was godawful on a legendary scale (although of course still better than Trump), and Kamala Harris was in no way shape or form prepared for the globe-spanning contest that was suddenly thrust upon her to win with a few seconds still on the clock. AOC is actually popular, which is a rare thing in a Democratic candidate and not to be taken lightly I think.
If we’re going to resort to the statistics of small numbers and ignore all the other shared traits that lead to the failure of two neoliberal campaigns by uncharismatic candidates trying to be the Democrat for Republicans, then the only correct demographic to choose is a black man with a Muslim sounding name. It’s a guaranteed success.
Does that strike you as maybe not the best reasoning?
That is my worry. Dems have tried it twice and lost both times.
Although in fairness they were both centrists who pivoted more center, which imo is a recipe for disaster especially for women candidates who are just never going to capture significant rightwing votes. Kamala in particular started out really really strongly and lost more and more support as she gave up leftwing talking points
I think this is the critical point. Women candidates will continue to struggle with voters that are center to center-right, so a woman presidential candidate really needs to have broad appeal on the left to succeed. They can’t afford to lose many, if any, likely leftist or liberal voters. Both Harris and Clinton were deeply unpopular with the American Left. Many were willing to swallow their pride to vote for Harris, but then she refused to call a genocide a genocide, and many dropped their support in response. A female candidate cannot afford to alienate leftists on such a critical issue.
I don’t think you can hold those two specific candidates against women in general. Hilary Clinton was godawful on a legendary scale (although of course still better than Trump), and Kamala Harris was in no way shape or form prepared for the globe-spanning contest that was suddenly thrust upon her to win with a few seconds still on the clock. AOC is actually popular, which is a rare thing in a Democratic candidate and not to be taken lightly I think.
If we’re going to resort to the statistics of small numbers and ignore all the other shared traits that lead to the failure of two neoliberal campaigns by uncharismatic candidates trying to be the Democrat for Republicans, then the only correct demographic to choose is a black man with a Muslim sounding name. It’s a guaranteed success.
Does that strike you as maybe not the best reasoning?