Why did Kamala Harris lose? According to loud segment According to media reports, it was clearly misogyny and racism prevalent in a sick society.
the fact of inflation almost 3 times From the Trump administration to the Biden-Harris administration, mortgage costs have risen. over 80 percent, that Millions more illegal immigrants flowed across the border without any consequences, and two great intractable wars It cannot be caused by being started.
It would be too painful to admit that Joe Biden's term was an economic and geopolitical failure. It is far more satisfying to place the blame on amorphous concepts like misogyny. And it's also simple – women are lost and therefore misogynistic.
The reality is that this kind of blame-shifting is intellectually lazy and dishonest. Accusations of misogyny are not only sure to alienate millions of voters, but are also likely to prove harmful when selecting Democratic candidates in 2028.
Winning the presidency is difficult. Only 40 people have been elected president in their own right. Meanwhile, there are 61 losers in the general election (counting the two major parties and serious “third party” candidates like Ross Perot). Fifty-nine of the losers were white men (Barack Obama said the success rate for black men was nearly 100 percent) and two were women.
If we look at the nomination process, the number of losers is even higher. Starting in 1960, the first election in which party primaries truly helped determine candidates, at least 106 people have participated in the Iowa caucuses, including member Kamala Harris. de facto Coronation ceremony. Only 22 of them won their party's nominations: 20 out of 96 men (21 percent) and 2 out of 10 women (20 percent). Black men fared better, at 2 in 7 (or 29%).
These numbers aren't shocking. The hurdles for aspiring to the presidency are not that high, and there are many bad politicians in the world. Winning requires a difficult combination of experience, intelligence, charisma, competent campaigning, and luck. A split second of mishandling can ruin your campaign.
Identity warriors on the progressive left need to face another fact. Both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris were mediocre candidates with their own paths open to them. Furthermore, they benefited greatly from having their powers delegated to them by male presidents.
Clinton is certainly intelligent, but is there any doubt that her prominence is due to her marriage to Bill Clinton? Her start in national politics was not good. She kicked the hornet's nest when asked about her professional life. say cynically She chose not to.”[stay] Go home and bake cookies. ”Clinton’s advance Reshaping America's health care system It was a political disaster and contributed to the Democratic Party's massacre in the 1994 election.
When she decided to run for the vacant New York State Senate seat in 2000, Democratic bigwigs paved the way for her, making sure she was safe from lack of funding and no one to be her first choice. I was able to break through. she Lost by 12 points Republican Rick Lazio's approval ratings weren't particularly impressive given Al Gore's New York victory. 25 points difference.
The same was true for Clinton's nomination in 2016. It was relaxed by the Democratic Party administration. President Obama knee-jerked his own vice presidential ambitions, and her main opponent was candidate Bernie Sanders. Candidate Sanders is not well-received by Democratic Party elites and is likely to be the loser in the general election. she Lost to President Obama in 2008 This was the only time that her husband and the Democratic establishment were unable to successfully navigate her way.
Similarly, Harris' political experience is unimpressive. Harris, who is entering the 2024 race, last faced a serious Republican challenger in 2010, when she ran for attorney general, defeating Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley. did. In re-election, she easily defeated the Republican candidate. Funded him at 100:1.
In the case of the U.S. Senate, former Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez was the only survivor in the state, so she didn't even have to face a Republican. “Jungle Primary” In preparation for the 2016 general election. In 2020, she fell off In other words, she had never personally voted outside of California.
Yes, Harris was shrewdly positioned to be chosen by President Biden as vice president. But it didn't take much effort to meet the demands of Democratic identity politics by being a woman and a minority. Not since the days of smoke-filled boardrooms have candidates from major parties been so inexperienced in national politics.
The bottom line is that winning the presidency is extremely difficult. It would be a big mistake to make it easier for any candidate to join because of their gender or race. It's ridiculous to say that a woman can't become president just because two bad female candidates lost. In order for a woman to be elected, she had to work hard to become a candidate, overcoming challenges and severe scrutiny. Thus Margaret Thatcher became British Prime Minister in 1983 (and Barack Obama won).
But it's easy to see how the misogyny argument goes from a convenient excuse to a demanding article of faith. After all, Democrats checked the minority box against Obama. Nowadays, women are being nominated and receiving awards. Never mind if she has the chops to win.
And the problem is mathematics. Disqualifying half the population only narrows the field of candidates. Sure, that means some bad male candidates don't contaminate the preliminary process, but it also means some potential winners are excluded.
Harris is likely to lead in the polls for the Democratic nomination over the next three years. But it's all name recognition and more than a little reflexive pity. If Trump does poorly, her numbers will improve. But that still doesn't mean she's the best candidate.
The more Democrats embrace misogynistic excuses, the more likely they are to force a female candidate onto the ballot. They may be after the gold, but so far it's fool's gold.
keith nortonHe is a co-founder of Silent Majority Strategies, a public and regulatory affairs consulting firm, and a former Pennsylvania political campaign consultant.
