• Eldritch@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    I agree. It wasn’t just sexism. Hillary had been positioning for decades. And politically smeared for decades because of it. She was a genuinely out of touch and not very likeable person that made a lot of unforced errors. With decades worth of baggage good and bad. That selfishly put herself above everyone else. Not taking things seriously.

    Kamala had her own baggage and well as historically being a supremely uninspiring candidate. Who was thrown to the wolves at the last minute. Flailing incompetently to career death. Even if she doesn’t realize it yet.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      No, I disagree. It was all about the sexism. Cameron Harris would have won that election, taking all the same positions as Kamala Harris, with the only difference being his ownership of a penis.

      The thing with modern misogynists is that they are self-aware enough to know that they can’t just come out and say that they are voting based on what organs the candidates possess. So they fool themselves into using other excuses… “she’s a cop”, “GeNoCiDe”, or my favorite “she reminds me too much of my ex”.

      • Eldritch@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        We know. Just as we know, there’s also no significant evidence of that. While misogyny was involved in the race for sure. If you can look at either Harris or Clinton and say that was the driving force behind their losses. Then you’re behaving willfully blind.

        Harris was one of the lowest polling Democrats in the 2020 primaries. Who had spent years and years as district attorney. Applying biased injustice to vulnerable groups. There was lots of good reason not to like her beyond her sex. Likewise Hillary Clinton, who spent years in proximity to corruption and power. Where one of the last notably and objectively good things she did. Ended her career as a young Republican in the early 1970s. There was no lack of good things to dislike about her as well.

        Don’t get me wrong, I think both of them would have been adequate status quo presidents. Who would have continued the slowe decay. But they had a lot of baggage of their own creation that held them back more than any uterus did.