General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKamala Harris is "not likable."
Link to tweet
@DisavowTrump20
Kamala Harris is not likeable.
Elizabeth Warren is a liar.
Amy Klobuchar is mean.
Kirsten Gillibrand is too ambitious.
Somehow, every female candidate for President has already been discredited/disqualified and its not even 2020.
Coincidence? I think not.
Caliman73
(11,738 posts)EACH AND EVERYONE OF THEM...INCLUDING GILLIBRAND WOULD BE 10,000,000,000 times BETTER than Trump or ANY other Republican candidate.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Many old white men are afraid of powerful women. And that goes double for powerful black women.
I have to disagree on Gillibrand though. I don't trust her after Franken and I can't ever get around that. Where are her demands that trump and kavanaugh, to name just two pubican sex abusers, step down immediately like she did to her Democratic counterpart?
Hekate
(90,714 posts)...their places. New blood with a Y-chromosome, that is.
Things that make you go hmmmmm.
peacefrogman
(76 posts)embarrassed by the obvious.
Cha
(297,323 posts)been "discredited", too?
Notice he didn't list Gabbard's name.. Good.. I think she discredited herself.
Kamala is quite likeable, actually.. and Elizabeth.. that's one thing.. she has a lot of qualifications on the whole.
I have no idea who I'm going to support yet.
I know nothing about Amy Klobuchar yet.
UniteFightBack
(8,231 posts)True Blue American
(17,986 posts)Then comes the kicker, because he wears Union suits made in Ohio!
Imagine that!
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)that Biden is unlikeable or a liar.
Cha
(297,323 posts)about Julian Castro or Sen Sherrod Brown.
I have seen a lot of negative post about VP Biden, though and Sen Booker.. and Beto even though he hasn't said if he's running or not.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)often has a different tone to it.
2naSalit
(86,650 posts)It's always the same old song. Perhaps it's best they can't come up with anything else, makes it easier to point out to others due to consistency.
Cha
(297,323 posts)"unlikeable, mean, liar" slurs seem to be thrust on Democratic women candidates.
The Russian stooge is the one who's an Unlikeable, Mean Liar.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)"Liar" will be as easily tossed at any candidate of either gender, if their opponents can find a reason to use it. It does not play off any stereotype of femininity as the other words might (i.e. that women need to make themselves likable or shouldn't be seen as too ambitious... there is nothing comparable for being or not being a liar, nothing gender-specific there).
UniteFightBack
(8,231 posts)I hope they remember that the next time they want to bash Gillibrand.
Another thing...I have not heard anyone specifically say Elizabeth Warren is a liar...have you?
Now I know somebody else who is a true liar so please who is calling her a liar?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)A recent headline:
Apollyonus
(812 posts)This OP more likely came from within Democratic or Para-Democratic circles and I suspect devotees of the Messiah who have the motive to denigrate their competition.
Amishman
(5,557 posts)Her speaking style is not as harmonious or smooth as President Obama. JFK, MLK, and FDR are other examples.
To be fair, it is a difficult skill. We are spoiled to have had such a good orator as our last legitimate president.
jcgoldie
(11,631 posts)...and all he did was "like beer".
videohead5
(2,178 posts)She lost because of Comey's letter 11 days before the election. The emails is the reason she lost and Russian propaganda. No democrat will have a problem like that in 2020.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)The next female presidential nominee, win or lose, owes her big time. They can only hope to win a three million vote advantage, but have it count. She's been a gracious "loser" even though thoroughly robbed. Reversing the outcome would have Trump raising total hell. Had the Bush/Gore outcome been reversed, the Republicans, by all accounts at the time, were ready to mount a major protest against the electoral college.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)It's an accident of history that she did it at a time when the Republican Party had become willing to do everything and anything to not lose power to the Democrats, even ally with Russia against their own nation.
Not too long in future that is how historians will discuss Hillary's seminal candidacy in retrospect. But clear-eyed observers don't have to wait for their books to know it.
MANative
(4,112 posts)By the right wing. They set the narrative. But we saw what happened last November when democrats came together and worked our butts off.
still_one
(92,242 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,370 posts)those things about Hillary!
And helped to give us Trump. I am SOOOOOO sick and tired of women candidates being held to standards that male candidates never are.
TeamPooka
(24,229 posts)Mike Nelson
(9,960 posts)Soxfan58
(3,479 posts)I will decide before March 8, 2020. I am always impressed with the brilliant, diverse field the Dems have in comparison to the white, male, with One woman and One black tthat the repervs put up
yardwork
(61,657 posts)We as a society need to do some soul searching about the way we treat women in power, especially older women.
Men are praised for being strong, ambitious, forceful, and uncompromising. Women are slammed for having the exact same traits. Often the people doing the slamming are other women. Wake up, America.
Apollyonus
(812 posts)... someone has to give cues to the Russians on what to spread ....
PatSeg
(47,512 posts)they said similar things about Hillary going back to the 1990s. It is the same old trap they've set before and we must not take the bait. It will be easy for political operatives to turn republican voters against these candidates, but their primary objective is to undermine our confidence in our best and brightest politicians.
Don't buy or repeat their crap. The fact that they are going mostly after our female candidates means they are the greatest threat. All the more reason to turn a deaf ear to the propaganda and use our energies wisely. Meanwhile, the republicans weakest point is that their politicians are god-awful and very vulnerable.
lark
(23,121 posts)While the worst person in the world stole our government and is ruling for the benefit of Russia and the detriment of American ideals and the America workers and the poor.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)Update on the presidential race:
#Harris is a cop!
#Gillibrand is an opportunist!
#Klobuchar isn't REALLY nice!
#Warren is another Dolezal!
But #Biden, #Bernie and #Beto are golden & #Schultz gets a Town Hall.
MSM learned NOTHING from 2016.
You hate women more than ever.
1:32 AM - 7 Feb 2019
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)Do you think its a coincidence that almost every major candidate got hit with something?
Gothmog
(145,337 posts)I do not care about if a candidate is likeable and each of these four women would make a great POTUS
MH1
(17,600 posts)I would love for a woman of color, or a white woman, or an LGBTQ person, or any minority, to win the Presidency as a Democrat.
The pragmatist in me recognizes that any of those factors will automatically exclude a larger population of voters than a charismatic white male, even if the policy positions are essentially the same. Put in sports terms, we'd be spotting the other team several points from the get-go.
The most important thing is to GET TRUMP OUT. Replaced by a Democrat of course.
If there's a woman who is as strong a candidate as Obama was as a black man, then by all means let's go for it. But expect to constantly be fighting the battle in your OP.
Otherwise let's nominate the BEST CANDIDATE we have - even if it's a white male. The sexism and racism in society sucks, but it's there, and we either play the hand we're dealt, or we lose and things get even worse.
Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)I have mentioned a concern here. I'll let it play out during the primaries. My instincts are that female prosecutors who are accustomed to being on offense have a very, very difficult time remaining calm and coming across as likable when suddenly they are on the defensive.
Our 2020 nominee is going to be on the defensive more often than not. That's the aspect I don't think is widely understood, by Harris or anyone else. The incumbent manages that dynamic of being on offense. Trump will still be the focal point, whether he is trailing in the polls or not. He'll have an unflattering nickname for our nominee and the attacks will be flying from all directions, most of them unfair, and unforeseen right now. But definitely the socialist tag will be among them. Heck, they applied that to Bill Nelson here in Florida. The debate moderators need to ask that socialist question in every debate, so our nominee is prepared and toughened. The candidates need to go back and forth on it in free flowing style.
Likability in 2020 will depend on how our nominee fares while on defense. Offense really doesn't matter at all. And if we nominate a female, then the same misogynistic aspect applies as 2016. A female nominee needs to be more likable than a male nominee.
I have always assigned charisma/likability as the number one requirement toward knocking off an incumbent, so I'm hardly going to pretend 2020 doesn't qualify merely because Donald Trump is that incumbent. Adjustments seldom work. Ousting an incumbent is an incredible undertaking.
Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren will be on defense solely due to geography...the coastal liberal vs. flyover crap.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And you say a female nominee needs to be more likable than a male nominee. How is that possible when in the views of many, likability in a woman is not compatible with competence?
IluvPitties
(3,181 posts)Gillibrand, hell no.
Totally Tunsie
(10,885 posts)and look where his ass is sitting today.
Iggo
(47,558 posts)I didn't vote for her six times because I like her.
I voted for her because each time I thought she was the best person for the job.