Democratic Women Keep Hearing About 'Electability'

[DonViejo]

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2019, 09:38 AM - Edit history (1)

July 3, 2019 at 8:35 am EDT By Taegan Goddard

New York Times: “Three years after nominating the first woman in history to head a presidential ticket, nearly six months after a wave of energized women swept Democrats into power in the House, and as a record number of women run for president, the party finds itself grappling with the strangely enduring question of the electability of women — and with the challenge for the candidates of refuting it before it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

“Privately, Democratic strategists, candidates and officials say they’ve been alarmed by how deeply doubts about female electability have taken hold. In polling, interviews and focus groups, a portion of the party’s voters suggest they’re eager to see a woman on the ticket but fear that putting her in the top slot could cost them the White House — again. The question comes up frequently in early primary states, including at events organized for female voters.”

“Much of the concern centers not on what Democratic voters themselves say they want but a prediction of what they believe others will support.”

David Wasserman: “Democrats at risk of learning absolute wrong lesson from 2016. The prospect of being the first female president is a general election asset.”

###

https://politicalwire.com/2019/07/03/democratic-women-keep-hearing-the-electability-question/

[Cary]

1. Hillary Clinton was a great candidate

It would be nice to be able to shut up all of the Hillary Clinton haters. Sadly they aren't all Republicans but they are all to blame for our current predicament. It is a steep price to pay for irrational loathing.

How many of the Hillary Clinton haters are smart enough to realize their error?

[pazzyanne]

2. "How many of the Hillary Clinton haters are smart enough to realize their error?"

A great question that hits at the heart of the problem we face in the next elections.

[Cary]

3. Yes and there were plenty of them right here

Would we get one of them to step up and own it?

I won't hold my breath.

[Honeycombe8]

12. Let's not rehash the last election. This is a different election.

You don't want to hear facts & truth, so let's not go there. There are plenty of articles out there analyzing what went wrong in 2016.

Look at how and why Obama got elected, is what I would say, when looking for a roadmap.

[NewJeffCT]

4. Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump

after Trump cleaned the clocks of the biggest (and supposedly best) primary field in GOP history.

And, she received 3 million more votes despite:

Trump receiving upwards of $5 billion in free media coverage and completely driving the news cycle 98% of the time.
Russia (and others) interfering in the election on behalf of Trump.
The Comey letter to Congress being leaked by Jason Chaffetz to the NY Times.
The media failing to fully investigate Trump's daily campaign-ending scandals and also failing to explain the fake Clinton email scandal.

[MrsCoffee]

5. It took treason to beat her.

[BeyondGeography]

6. Looks like they're going to have get over it

Our two strongest candidates right now are women. Oh well.

If it’s to be a man, unless Biden or Sanders have another gear they’ve been hiding somewhere for the last three or four decades, the choices are probably Buttigieg, O’Rourke and Booker.

[Eric J in MN]

8. You think Beto O'Rourke

...is more likely to be the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee than either Biden or Bernie? If so, why?

[BeyondGeography]

9. Because they're living off name recognition right now

And they have both gotten off to terrible starts, as reflected by substantial declines in their numbers over the past month.

[IronLionZion]

7. "prediction of what they believe others will support."

We saw enough voters reject a qualified woman and elect the most deplorable dumb ass the GOP could find.

I hope enough voters have wised up since then to make a difference.

[marylandblue]

11. Today's women have advantages Clinton didn't have.

They haven't been the victim of a 30-year long smear campaign. And now we know what kind of campaign Trump will run, so they have a lot of time to prepare counter-strategies.

[jcgoldie]

13. The problem with trying to predict electability in this case...

...is if you choose a male candidate because you think the American people are too sexist to support a woman... then you have just inadvertently contributed to that sexism.

[marylandblue]

10. "a prediction of what they believe others will support."

This is the crux and goes to the heart of the electability argument. It's actually very difficult to predict other people's behavior and we often misread the data. Some people have concluded that if Hillary lost, no other woman can win. But that's probably the wrong lesson.

Gender may play a role, but there are many other factors at play. Since we now have different women in a different election, maybe one of the women can win this time?

[crazytown]

14. Hillary Clinton was not as strong a candidate as FDR, JFK, WJC or Obama

the most gifted politicians of their eras, or any era. If Joe Biden is held to that standard, he falls short as well - they all do.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

15. All I know is that the person people keep saying wasn't a strong candidate and was unlikeable and

weird and wonky and cold and a woman got more votes than Trump, so.