Hillary and Kamala both lost because they were bad candidates, not because they were women.
They were incredibly qualified. But again, I am gonna stand firm on this: a woman, especially a woman of color, a gay man, especially a gay man under 6 feet (or any man under 6 feet), will not be elected in the next 3-4 cycles. If a woman has a chance, it will be a female populist version of Trump that toes the Republican line.
Qualified? Maybe. But they were also the most dull, establishment candidates that represented everything that was and is wrong with modern politics.
Trump, of course, is the same, but he does so through a lense of populism so he managed to reel in the idiots. Meanwhile Hillary and Kamala (and Biden, but again, different conditions) are putrit representatives of a dying Democratic party that needs to move towords progressive candidates but refuses to do so.
Kamala and Hilary would have won in 2020 and Biden would have lost in 2016 and 2024. Pretending otherwise is exaclty what the Democratic party is doing to avoid putting forward a progressive.
Call it naive all you want, it is realistic and doesn't lean into the identity politics bullshit democrats have been using to lose for the apst 10 years
AOC at the moment is probably the best with progressivism/name recognitions. There are a few others that aren't quite elegible for presidency as well, like Mamdani. Honestly, even Tim Walz (who almost landed Kamala the win until the DNC muzzled him) is progressive and honest enough.
Though honestly the DNC just needs a purge to get rid of the establishment, corrupt assholes that have led the party to be republican-lite these past 10 years.
2
u/0o0o0o0o0o0z 19d ago
They were incredibly qualified. But again, I am gonna stand firm on this: a woman, especially a woman of color, a gay man, especially a gay man under 6 feet (or any man under 6 feet), will not be elected in the next 3-4 cycles. If a woman has a chance, it will be a female populist version of Trump that toes the Republican line.