I DON'T THINK A WOMAN IS ELECTABLE IN 2020 BECAUSE LAST TIME AROUND THE FEMALE NOMINEE ONLY GOT THRE

[mcar]

I DON’T THINK A WOMAN IS ELECTABLE IN 2020 BECAUSE LAST TIME AROUND THE FEMALE NOMINEE ONLY GOT THREE MILLION MORE VOTES THAN HER OPPONENT

by TOM SMYTH

Now don’t get me wrong, I love Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. But as great as they and the other female candidates are, I think Democrats should be focusing more on a sure-fire nominee who can beat Trump. Electability should be our number one priority, and I’m just not sure if America is ready to embrace a female candidate yet — especially considering that Hillary Clinton only got three million more votes than Donald Trump in 2016.

After that shocking blow, it became very clear that the problem isn’t the antiquated electoral college system that gives disproportionate influence to whiter states, but rather the problem is the woman thing. Americans, excluding those 65.8 million who made Hillary Clinton the person with the second most votes ever, just aren’t yet ready to elect a woman president.

And the stakes are just too high this time around to risk it by nominating yet another highly qualified woman in 2020....

After all, we have to play this smart, especially since Republicans decided to go with someone who is a traditional example of a highly electable candidate: a scandal-ridden reality television star. We have to bring our A-game and not risk it with these women who just bring decades of government experience and hundreds of pages of thoughtfully written policy to the table.

We need someone that people can see themselves getting a beer with, because drinking beer is one of the most important parts of being a president. And as everybody knows, women don’t drink beer because their lady stomachs can’t handle the enzymes because of their periods.

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-dont-think-a-woman-is-electable-in-2020-because-last-time-around-the-female-nominee-only-got-three-million-more-votes-than-her-opponent

[Skya Rhen]

1. Any woman that can win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida is electable. This will be tested

in the Primaries and we will have our answer, once and for all...

[StevieM]

26. Hillary was clearly about to win all of those states until Comey sabotaged her. (eom)

[LakeArenal]

29. Not sure about that.

I live in one of those and I am certain no woman will win it this time around.

If I say that, generally, I get blasted. But it’s true. True misogyny lives and is cultivated where I live.

[StevieM]

47. Which says a lot about how good a campaign she ran, the media's rewritten history notwithstanding.

She made Trump look like the dangerous lunatic that he was.

In the end, Comey got people so mad that they decided to go ahead and risk it.

[silentEcho]

53. I agree. HRC had so many forces against her like we have never seen.

From all sides including a third party challenger that challenged clear up to our convention and instead of a celebration of HRC victory in our convention, we experienced disruption and chaos from the supporters.

[YOHABLO]

65. But aren't there more women voters than there are men? The problem: voter turnout.

Not enough people are participating in this Democracy. Apathy and laziness is what it's come to.

[LakeArenal]

106. I guess you don't live in a virulent dumpster area.

This area had and still has a47-47% split.

Hillary was hated long before Comey. Bernie won the primary here. Even Dems didn’t/don’t like Hillary. There are still Hillary for Prison signs up and t-shirts for sale in dive bars.

This time around it won’t be a woman for anywhere around me.

[KPN]

30. Yup.

[AlexSFCA]

46. not WI where she didn't even bother showing up

she did campaign in PA but still lost it, don’t remember if she campaign heavily in industrial PA (she already got Philly so no need showing up there).

[joshcryer]

51. It was too late to go to the rust belt at that time.

She took it for granted. Bill Clinton was apparently miffed that they barely put any focus on the rust belt.

Had she put focus on those states the media would've immediately jumped on "concerns within the campaign" and such and they would've twisted it in a bad light.

Really the Comey letter did just let the air out of the bag.

[StevieM]

105. Really the Comey letter transformed the entire race. (eom)

[StevieM]

52. You are wrong. She did show up in Wisconsin.

She spend more money in advertising than Obama did in 2012. She had a larger ground game than Obama did in 2012.

She didn't schedule rallies there, after the primaries, because she was so far ahead. You generally hold your rallies in the states that look tighter. In any event, this is not the early 1900s. Campaign stops are not the primary determining factor in an election anymore. Holding rallies in Wisconsin (after the primaries when she did go there) would not have changed the outcome of the election, or even the race in Wisconsin.

Also, when Comey's intervention finally made Trump think he could win, the first thing he did was cancel an appearance in Wisconsin, a state he assumed was off the table. The fact that Trump won states where he was well behind is proof that the election was completely overhauled at the end.

[Lotusflower70]

60. Except that

She did. Although she canceled one trip and went to Orlando after the Pulse shooting to pay her respects. As someone who is in Minnesota, I really don't understand how people are mad about that and forget that part.

[mcar]

61. This is incorrect

She did go to those states. This is a RW and media zombie lie.

[lapucelle]

68. That's a favorite right wing talking point. Why is anyone here repeating it?

[mcar]

71. Some on this board will always demonize HRC, no matter what

I'm starting to see the same WRT some of today's female candidates too.

[silentEcho]

81. Clinton calls the idea that she didn't focus on those states enough "not credible."

"If just 40,000 people across Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania had changed their minds, I would have won," Clinton wrote. "With a margin like that, everyone can have a pet theory about why I lost. It's difficult to rule anything out. But every theory needs to be tested against the evidence that I was winning until October 28, when [former FBI Director] Jim Comey injected emails back into the election."

*

The former secretary of state wrote that in Pennsylvania, her team had 120 more staffers on the ground than President Barack Obama did four years earlier and spent 211% more on TV ads. She noted that she held more than 25 campaign events in the Keystone State while having major surrogates like Obama and Vice President Joe Biden make appearances as well.

She also noted that in Michigan, she had about 140 more staffers on the ground than Obama in 2012, spent 166% more on TV ads, and made seven visits during the general election campaign. "We lost both states, but no one can say we weren't doing everything possible to compete and win," she wrote.

On Wisconsin, Clinton said it was the "one place where we were caught by surprise." She said her team deployed 133 staffers to the Badger State and spent $3 million on TV ads, "but if our data (or anyone else's) had shown we were in danger, of course we would have invested even more." "I would have torn up my schedule, which was designed based on the best information we had, and camped out there," she wrote.

Clinton pointed to new voter ID laws in the state as a strong reason for why she lost Wisconsin.

https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-pennsylvania-michigan-wisconsin-what-happened-2017-9

[lapucelle]

84. I traveled out of state every weekend for a few months to work the Clinton ground game.

Anyone who ignores the impact of the gutting of the Voting Rights Act on the 2016 general election is missing a big part of the picture.

[silentEcho]

91. HRC had a well run, almost flawless campaign. Orginization, smarts, effectiveness. Solid.

From a pragmatic, non-emotional assessment, HRC excelled.

For me, this is pure gas-lighting of 2016. After a lifetime, I am not doing gas-lighting anymore. I call it. The internet is very good at this. Let us not forget because it is so successful, it will not stop.

[StevieM]

109. It is important to understand how the GOP goes about gas-lighting us.

The accuse Democrats of making up a phony scandal about Russia. People don't believe them, but it makes it much harder for Democrats to explain that Republicans actually do have a policy of making up phony scandals about their opponents, and that this has dominated our politics since 1993, starting with Whitewater. Another example is the baseless claim that Democrats orchestrated the charges against Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh, which makes it harder to explain that the GOP, and Ken Starr, had their hands all over the allegations against Bill Clinton.

[marylandblue]

89. "With a margin like that, everyone can have a pet theory about why I lost."

I think that's the key sentence in the whole article. We are spending a lot of time this time around talking about our pet theories for 2020. Out pet theories seem to control our candidate choices more than anything else.

A lot of our pet theories are, "People won't vote for _______ (candidate, policy or characteristic), therefore we should stop arguing and agree on Candidate X."

Well, all I know is that people never vote for pet theories, they vote for people.

[silentEcho]

92. This is a very good point. This makes me think, and though I know all this,

you said it so well and clearly. Thank you. I agree.

[RHMerriman]

40. Of course, even the writer acknowledges the reality of the Electoral College

Of curse, even the writer acknowledges the reality of the Electoral College:

After that shocking blow, it became very clear that the problem isn’t the antiquated electoral college system that gives disproportionate influence to whiter states, but rather the problem is the woman thing. Americans, excluding those 65.8 million who made Hillary Clinton the person with the second most votes ever, just aren’t yet ready to elect a woman president.

If any Democratic candidate shows real strength in the Great Lakes states, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Texas, they have a path to the White House. If they don't, they should run for a currently Republican seat in the Senate or House, or stay where they are if they are already in Congress.

Anything else, at this point, diverts attention from our true enemy.

[brer cat]

2. Well done, Tom Smyth.

Thanks, mcar.

[mcar]

7. I thought it was a good one

[Me.]

3. Don't You Just Love It?

Here's my biggest problem ...what if we do elect a male beer drinker and I don't want to drink a beer with him because I don't drink beer. Who will represent me?

[mcar]

9. Good question

[DownriverDem]

4. Please understand

We are not talking about winning the popular vote. The sad fact is that we have to win the Electoral College if we want to beat trump. We have to win the middle if we want to beat trump. This is why I support Biden. Biden running with a strong progressive Dem woman can beat trump. Americans would then see a woman as VP which we have never had. She would then be aligned to be President. It's not who you like or who I like. it's who can beat trump.

[Politicub]

8. A woman can win. A woman can win. A woman can win.

It’s infuriating when people attach a woman to Biden as VP to serve as an accessory.

If the point of “only a man can win the electoral college” is to demoralize feminists, it is having the opposite effect.

[mcar]

10. Thank you!

[ooky]

22. I don't believe that was the point of Downriver's post though.

The idea that Joe Biden could be the best candidate to deliver the electoral college victory is about policy differences, not gender.

[marylandblue]

25. According to many DUers, it is about a lot of things,

only a few of which are about policy, but all of which, no matter what, favor Joe Biden and exclude all others. It's really pretty convenient, but then again, being the perfect candidate is often quite convenient for the perfect one.

[ooky]

49. Its how I took his post. With respect to your

comments I can't speak for "many DUers", but can for myself, and its hardly about convenience for me. I just want to win, and I'm fearful that voicing support for things like MFA eliminating employer health insurance are political losers with the center in the general election - and will get us another 4 years of Trump and possibly another trifecta for Republicans. Its not about gender or color for me, its about not losing. FWIW my preferred candidate is Amy Klobachar, but she's not getting any traction within our base. So, until something changes, I'm going with my gut feel in the primary and then support whatever ticket we nominate in the general election.

[Turin_C3PO]

55. If Joe Biden

wins the election, it will be based on his ability to connect and empathize with voters, not his centrist policies. A lot of the independent types don’t really vote based on positions but on personality. Besides Biden, I think Warren could win also, she has that ability to connect and persuade.

[ooky]

73. If Joe wins, I think it will be both.

Warren is very good at connection and persuasion. And she will need to be very persuasive if general election voters who have employer insurance they like feel that it may be threatened.

[marylandblue]

64. Fair enough, but I think the OP makes a valid point.

Some months ago, there were some vigorous threads about whether we really did need a white male this time. Naturally there was a lot pushback on that. There were also threads on whether someone could be too old to run for President. That generated a lot of pushback regarding ageism too.

Those threads died down, but I doubt anyone changed their mind. So, I'm guessing a lot of people are still use age and gender as factors, but since it's unacceptable to say so, they find proxy issues to exclude a candidate. Meanwhile, other people, knowing that supporters are using proxy issues, are ever vigilant for implicit bias.

I'm not saying you personally are doing any of this, but I do see evidence of these proxy wars both on DU and among pundits. Since few people will admit to doing it, sarcasm is sometimes the most effective response.

[ooky]

79. I have no issue with the OP.

A lot of the discussion, still, is valid. I would agree that diversity in our candidates is an important discussion, that age can be a valid concern, and M$M pundits will say just about any ridiculous thing imaginable. I don't accept (nor do I believe that most DUers would accept) that a female candidate is unelectable simply because of her gender. If our last election hadn't been interfered with we would already have a female president.

[Skya Rhen]

69. Well, it's clear that the fact Joe is favored by the rust belt states, over Bernie or Buttigieg,

has nothing to do with gender. So, it must be policy and personality...

[marylandblue]

74. That's clearly unrelated to my point, so try again.

[gldstwmn]

100. How is it clear? No votes

have been cast yet.

[LakeArenal]

32. No one is trying to diminish anyone.

The truth is racism and misogyny are winning right now.

If I don’t think a woman can win where I live, I won’t vote for that person in a primary. That is not because women are women. It’s because we are running to wrest control from haters.

If it’s so insulting for a woman VP. Then why are so many calling for it if a Man wins the primary?

[treestar]

56. It's not us, it's the average voters in the swing states

Why would the first female VP be an accessory? No one called male VPs that. It's a little step that might soften the unconscious misogynists. The ones who found Hillary "unlikeable" but had no good reason for that.

[maddiemom]

90. You're so right.

[LakeArenal]

107. Exactly.

Good observation on the “no reason”.

[gldstwmn]

98. Bravo.

[mcar]

11. ...

But, of course, some people want a candidate with “policy” who can represent people other than straight white men. To those people, I say there is a fine alternative: the vice presidency. That way we can sneak representation past sexist America like a Trojan horse, and then a supremely qualified woman can be relegated to doing photo-ops at ice cream shops or whatever else a vice president does. They won’t mind having to play second fiddle to a less-qualified man. It’s not like they’ve had to put up with this kind of thing since the beginning of time.

[obamanut2012]

24. Warren and probably Harris will have just as much a chance to beat Trump as Biden

Saying they can't is not factual.

[LakeArenal]

33. Saying that they can is just as not factual.

It’s opinion.

[treestar]

59. The swing states that went for the Dotard

are not states I see going for Harris or Warren. If the economy is still looking good or at least perceived to be, neither of those have as good a chance as Hillary did.

[Turin_C3PO]

76. Oh I think they have a better chance than Clinton.

Clinton, unfairly, had high negatives due to years of the right wing smear machine. From what I’ve seen, people really like Warren once they get to know her. Harris is likeable too, I think.

[silentEcho]

82. As Sec of State HRC had very high favorable. A lot of factors out of her control brought down the

number. She was well liked and respected, as long as she was not running for President.

[Turin_C3PO]

83. I know she did.

To me, she’s one of the more likable politicians I’ve seen.

[silentEcho]

93. This is what I will remember from that time.

I too, had to start really paying attention to HRC and not the caricature that was created for her. There are so many blatant lies that facts dismissed. I had to have my own adjustment in perceiving and listening to HRC because I saw so many of the things being said of her that in reality, was the complete opposite.

By the time it was all said and done, I found an awesomely accomplished woman. A lifetime of charitable to those that need and I thought to myself, I have not done even a little of what she has for others. What was I thinking. I appreciate HRC so much more than when I started.

So in a sense, though she did not break the Presidential ceiling, I think she shattered a more macro glass ceiling. We see the effects today with our vocal women politicians of all age and diversity.

[maddiemom]

99. She WAS Gallop Poll's "Most Admired Woman in the World" seventeen years in a row,

including in 2016. Last year (2018), Michelle Obama knocked her down to third. Oprah, always close to the top,was second. Most Admired Man is nearly always the U.S. President, although Henry Kissinger knocked out Gerald Ford. Douglas MacArthur was also named a couple of times. Ford (never actually elected) was the only POTUS since the poll started who hasn't ever been voted Most Admired Oh yes--- and neither has TRUMP. Barack Obama was named for the 10th and eleventh times since the OLD BIRTHER has been in office.

[silentEcho]

101. Right?

That is the true gas-lighting. Telling us how much she is not liked, which creates that very thing. It was interesting to watch. And telling. Informative.

[delisen]

103. I think we will need a female candidate to beat Trump.

[Politicub]

5. Love McSweeny's - this piece cuts to the quick of the absurdity of giving an

electability point to a man just because he is a man.

[sheshe2]

6. Thank you, mcar.

Listen, I want a first female president just as much as the next guy. But now just isn’t the time. We tried going for it once and it didn’t work out. So maybe next time, or the time after that, or three or four times after that. I can’t commit to when exactly because who knows, the stakes might be just as high in 2024 or 2028 or the next half-dozen or so general elections in the future. Besides, there are probably going to be some fresh male faces that we should be seriously considering then anyway. You know, to promote progress within the party.

Well done, Tom.

[mcar]

12. The whole thing is great

Thanks she.

[pattyloutwo]

13. Love this, thank you!

[kstewart33]

14. Please, no caps.

We can read without them.

[mcar]

34. I just copied and pasted

[kstewart33]

108. Gotcha.

[Bettie]

15. Thank you for posting this

It perfectly says everything.

[watoos]

16. Maybe the problem in 2016

wasn't that Hillary was a woman, maybe the problem was that she was a centrist?

The polls had Bernie up on Trump by a bigger margin than Hillary and it wasn't because Bernie is a man.

[MrsCoffee]

19. Maybe the problem was treason.

Duh.

[marylandblue]

27. Not everyone buys that argument, but assuming you really do,

why bother voting at all? There's just going to be more treason.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

75. because we damn near did it in spite of the 'perfect storm'

It's hard to list all the things thrown against HRC, starting with the unrelenting RW propaganda campaign specifically aimed at her since at least the 1990s, and ending with treason, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, by multiple persons.

More voters can completely overwhelm the cheating.

[marylandblue]

80. Sure, she did very well considering all the factors against her.

In considering candidates this time, I am looking at ones who have strengths in areas where she was weak, so we can account for some of those many factors.

[peggysue2]

28. Duh x 1000

We can't talk 2016 without talking about what we now know happened. Donald Trump was and is illegitimate. From Day 1. We have a squatter sitting in the White House, an unfit man, grossly corrupt and incompetent. We have an opposition party equally corrupt and complicit in enabling the man. Hillary Clinton despite all the mudslinging and cheating won the popular vote by 3 million. As Dems, we have to ensure that Never Happens Again. That's why losing 2020 is not an option.

Donald Trump specifically and Trumpism generally needs to be defeated by numbers so big, so loud that the blast is heard round the world. A full repudiation of the ugliness, cruelty and thug-like behavior.

Nothing else matters. Nothing!

[mcar]

36. Which polls?

[betsuni]

39. As if Americans vote because they carefully study the policies of the two parties.

Too stupid for that. "Centrist."

[mcar]

66. This is incorrect

HRC, and the Democratic party, had the most liberal platform in decades. Look it up.

[Midwestocrat]

17. Turn your CAPS LOCK off.

[MrsCoffee]

20. It's just a copy paste of the original headline.

[Midwestocrat]

21. Ah - well then I won't blame you.

I don't like articles shouting at me.

[demmiblue]

18. I think Warren would do particularly well in Michigan.

Women did really well in Michigan in 2018 (Governorship, AG, Supreme Court, etc.).

Governor Whitmer focused on kitchen table issues; Warren shares that same type of focus.

Plus, Michigan went for Sanders in the 2016 primaries.

* This is not to say that other candidates wouldn't do well.

Election was slam dunk for women in Michigan

Michigan voters overwhelmingly chose women at the ballot box Tuesday, electing women for the first time in state history to all three of the top offices — governor, secretary of state and attorney general.

Debbie Stabenow held onto her U.S. Senate seat and three new female Democratic representatives — Haley Stevens, Elissa Slotkin and Rashida Tlaib — will walk the halls of Congress alongside Debbie Dingell and Brenda Lawrence, both of whom won re-election.

"It’s a big deal," said Shannon Garrett, co-founder of VoteRunLead, a nonprofit organization that trains women to run for office.

"What this tells us is that the Michigan voting public is trusting women’s leadership. In the areas where they had an actual choice, voters were choosing women. There is a shift happening in how we trust women to lead."

https://www.freep.com/story/news/2018/11/07/women-voters-2018-midterm-election/1894384002/

[Ohiogal]

23. Great piece.

[silentEcho]

31. The primaries are 6 months out. Most aren't paying attention.

At this point I am not going to conclude Biden is the only one with a sure win against Trump.

Also, I find it ironic after Sanders said we can't vote for HRC simply because she is a woman, and we listened to many call it offensively the vagina vote, that we are now being told to vote Biden because he is a man.

[mcar]

35. You do realize this is satire, right?

[silentEcho]

41. I certainly do. I also recognize the same comments from many the last couple months

including some on this thread right now, clearly saying a woman cannot win this time around and Biden should get the vote simply because he can beat Trump. I stand with my post.

I thought the article satirically correct. Point on.

[mcar]

43. You are right

I've seen many of the same statement here, made seriously, not satirically.

[silentEcho]

50. Right, exactly. Repeatedly like that is the campaign meme. He can beat Trump.

I want more from any of our candidates. And we are so far out to not even be able to see who would be strongest against Trump. We need more time. The glorious thing is we have that time.

[calimary]

37. I've gagged on that "gee, I could go have a beer with him" crap for way too long.

It was a huge undercurrent explaining the appeal of dubya to the masses.

That’s a meaningless attribute to someone like me. I couldn’t care less about somebody’s beer appeal. Otherwise why don’t we just anoint fucking Kavanaugh? I mean - SERIOUSLY??? A candidate’s beer-appeal is a relevant metric of what kind of president he (or she) would be?

A personal note - I hate beer. It tastes like stale soapy water to me. And it’s never been otherwise, no matter what kind - lager, stout, conventional, boutique or whatever. In my over-65 years I have never developed a taste for it. I wouldn’t ever have a beer with someone to determine their viability, electability, or anything else. I’ve known more than a few folks for whom beer was the gateway drug to all kinds of miscreant behavior, missed or pissed-away opportunity, and undesirability and disappointment in life. So that’s never been a positive metric for me, to begin with.

Now - someone I could have coffee or tea or maybe ice cream with, that’s somewhat different. Besides, an exposure like that would be kid-friendly, also. That would be important to me, and would be most instructive. It’d tell me a lot about the character thing.

[PatrickforO]

44. You and me both. I dislike beer and don't use alcohol at all.

Coffee? Well...maybe. But I'd rather have someone in there working hard to implement good policies that make my life and the lives of my family better - like healthcare, mitigating climate change, stronger social security.

But, yeah, coffee is an order of magnitude better than beer.

[Doreen]

38. So, what the article is saying is that us Democrats did not

get a white corrupt male for our choice....damn we forgot.

[PatrickforO]

42. Cute satire.

As to the concept of a 'lovable goof' that you can drink beer with, we had that with W.

Now we have a monster about whom NOTHING is lovable.

I am supporting Elizabeth Warren because I genuinely want a president who is smarter than me. I don't want to have beer. I want to have healthcare, strong social security, policies that mitigate climate change.

[mcar]

54. And W, supposedly, didn't drink

Neither does Biden, for that matter.

Me, I'd love to have cocktail hour with Harris, Warren, Gillibrand or Klobuchar. I think that would be a blast. But that's not why I'd vote for them.

[PatrickforO]

63. Yes. Gillibrand isn't my favorite because of Franken, but I'd still support her

fervently in the general election. Klobuchar is a bit centrist for me, but likewise. Harris and Warren - no qualifications for full support of either one. Both would be great.

I'd even do the cocktail hour and just have an Arnie Palmer.

[SunSeeker]

45. K & R

[Honeycombe8]

48. I would vote for Klobuchar. nt

[demigoddess]

57. You said what I have been thinking.

Yes, we must be careful with our 'unelectable' women.

[mcar]

58. Yep

[Baclava]

62. I dont think theres a sure fire anything happening, its wide open for any candidate to step up

Its gonna be a long race to the top, for sure

Go Liz!

[crazytown]

67. Know your place. Good Girls Stay Quiet.

https://www.amazon.com/Good-Girls-Stay-Quiet-Cassidy/dp/1948095114

[Hermit-The-Prog]

70. Warren, Harris, or Klobuchar

Hillary's voters are ready to try again.

How many potential voters failed to vote for Hillary because of the decades of propaganda against her? Those "clouds and shadows" can't be manufactured in such quantity and in such limited time for the women running this time.

Overwhelm the cheats. It's time for Madam President.

[mcar]

72. It is time, Hermit

and we have some great women running!

[silentEcho]

94. Overwhelm the cheats. It's time for Madam President.

That is what we had to do with the first black man in office.

[Novice Patriot]

77. Sorry Tom

This may be an issue that you should stand clear of.

I tend to believe that if the election were held on any day since the last election that Hilary would get 65% of the vote easily, that is because Hilary on her worst day is light years better than what we have now. This guy that we call President now has a condition much worse than a Menstrual cycle, he has bone spurs of the brain.

[mcar]

86. This is satire

[NastyRiffraff]

78. Sadly there are some who would nod their heads in agreement

Including some here on DU. The Pure Of Heart(tm) often don't get satire.

[mcar]

87. I'm seeing that

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

85. I believe the article is supposed to be satire

However as with any good satire it makes fun of the attitudes of some.

[mcar]

88. Yes, it's satire

I knew that when I posted it. Sadly, I've seen some of the author's satiric statements here - but serious.

[silentEcho]

95. That is truly good satire when we see the ridiculous of what is in actuality, happening.

[Hekate]

96. Tom Smyth gets it, completely. Now watch the pushback from some at DU

Thanks for this, mcar

[mcar]

97. Oh, yeah, the pushback is here

[guillaumeb]

102. Recommended.

Brutal, and funny.

[doc03]

104. That would be so sweet if a women or a black women would beat Trump.

I think they would have to drag him out of the Whitehouse in a straight- jacket.

[Iggo]

110. Kick.

[bloom]

111. 2020 will be the 'Year of Women'

With the 100 year anniversary of suffrage - it will be appropriate. The perfect celebration.

[mcar]

112. Yes!

[Gothmog]

113. I think that Harris, Warren and Klobuchar are all electable

[struggle4progress]

114. "To appeal to voters, we need a populist who can brag about sexually assaulting women!"

[mcar]

115. ...