The Erasure of Black Women Continues: Let's talk about Misogynoir

[sheshe2]

Misogynoir is a term that was coined by Moya Bailey. This term explains how hatred is directed towards women of color and in particular, black women. Whether it be hair, clothing, body, or intellect, misogynoir is directed toward black women in popular culture and politics.

The most glaring examples of misogynoir have manifested in our society’s and media’s treatment of people like Kamala Harris, Joy Reid, and Maxine Waters, just to name a few.

Harris has already withdrawn from the race for the Democratic nomination for president. Before her departure, though, the media peppered her with obituaries because she was polling at 3 percent according to some polls. Ask yourself: why were pundits so eager for Harris to call it quits when Bloomberg and Steyer were polling about the same? If Harris was doing so poorly and no one thinks she has a chance of winning, one has to wonder why Steyer stole her voter data in South Carolina. Why would Mike Bloomberg hire someone from Harris’s campaign just as the resignation letter was conveniently leaked to the New York Times? You do not go after anyone that you deem incompetent. Harris was a threat because she could bring together a powerful coalition of black women, the most reliable voting block for the Democrats.

snip

African Americans were not that keen on Obama until they saw that white people in Iowa were willing to vote for him. Then they climbed aboard the bandwagon. Most African American voters are backing Joe Biden in 2020. Harris was polling second, but also second choice to black Biden voters. If Biden faltered, it is very likely that the black vote would go to Harris. The Beltway press and the billionaires are aware of this and that is why they did their best to harpoon her presidential run. Harris had a boatload of endorsements, but you wouldn’t know it to look at cable news. One thing is true: unless you have the black vote, you are not going to be the nominee. It’s not a coincidence that the only black female candidate with a platform to appeal to black women was targeted from the beginning. Bloomberg may not realize this, but black people are savvy voters, and we can smell a ratfink hit piece a mile away!

Read More: https://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2019/12/5/the-erasure-of-black-women-continues-lets-talk-about-misogynoir

You really should go on to read the rest. Hurts to know that Harris, Reid and Waters were all targeted. Yes, their was a reason for that.

Pains me to see the lack of color for the December debate....correction, a stage devoid of color.

Vote 2020

[mcar]

1. I am very concerned about the lack of diversity

in a Democratic field that was the most diverse in history. All white people on the next debate stage? Including 2 white male billionaires who are buying their way in?

[BlueMTexpat]

2. I am with you on this!

I vacillated between Elizabeth and Kamala for a long time.

I am VERY sorry to see Kamala leave the primary stage.

There are certainly a lot of white males we could do without before losing her as a candidate.

[sheshe2]

10. Harris was my first choice.

With her polling I ended up switching to my senator.

There are certainly a lot of white males we could do without before losing her as a candidate.

Agreed. *sigh*

[Mc Mike]

3. She was one of my favorites.

She would still make a fine running mate or US A.G. The 2 billionaires are near the bottom of my druther list.

[MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy]

4. But we forget.

Being a gay man trumps being a woman or a person of color.

No matter how unqualified the gay man and how qualified the woman and person of color.

Just ask Hollywood.

(I realize my comments may seem incongruous in light of my primary choice. That choice is based on the extreme need to defeat Trump and the best choice for doing that. Pete Buttigieg has zero chance of doing it. My vote was kind of Harris's to lose, at the outset, and she lost it, but I agree that she would be an excellent candidate for a senior cabinet position. I do think we have to remember that policy and law come almost entirely from Congress, and step back somewhat from the ideological differences between Democratic candidates and focus on how to end Trump. All my life I've wished I had the luxury of "vote your conscience", of vote for rather than against, but the opportunity just seldom comes along.)

[StarfishSaver]

27. Correction: WHITE gay man

If Buttigieg were black, we wouldn't even be discussing him as a presidential candidate.

[Hortensis]

81. How can you say that? Now, whether he'd still be

in the race is another matter. The big constituency out there this time seems to be committed to beating the Republicans. But even if they were not involved in what they, at least, clearly and rightly regard as an existential election, large factions within the AA bloc are conservatively and/or religiously against equality for LGBTQ.

That's just reality. As is the reality that 12% of the electorate in 2016 was black, almost all voting Democratic. If they wanted Kamala, she'd definitely still be in the race and everyone would be taking her seriously.

[MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy]

166. Very true - I meant to imply that :) (nt)

[Glorfindel]

37. Thank you. Just what we need: More gay-bashing. Hooray!

Welcome to DU, MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy. I'm sure you have LOTS to contribute to our discussions.

[True Blue American]

101. Harris would make a great

Attorney General.

I think it is time for us to join in beating Trump, getting rid of Republicans instead of arguing about who does what.

We can not fall into that trap. Whoever wins the Primaries will get the nomination.

I actually think choosing a candidate until we know is harmful. That is why I do not make a choice. I have my favorites on who I think is best but the nominee will get my full support.

My suggestion? Quit yer bitchin’ And concentrate on getting rid of Trump. Mitch, McCarthy, Jordan and all the other flunkies.

[MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy]

165. No, thank you!

A big dollop of demagoguery never goes amiss, does it?

edit: btw, I think you meant "welcome back". And you're welcome to check out my journal.

(Dating from 2015, that is.)

For ease of reference, here's something now:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8089920

[msongs]

5. she chose to quit. she didn't have to but she did nt

[Quackers]

42. Exactly. No one forced her to quit.

What did happen is one of her senior advisors resigned and penned a scathing letter stating, 'I have never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly'. But somehow all of this translates into being other people’s fault.

[Me.]

6. Yes, Let's

[WhiskeyGrinder]

7. K&R. It's going to take years of hard work to get through it.

And until white people love themselves enough to get free of white supremacy, it won't happen.

[fleur-de-lisa]

8. K&R

[The Valley Below]

9. She ran a bad race. End of story.

Liberal Democrats are more than ready to support a woman of color for president.

Harris started off with a bang. Her supporters didn't suddenly peel off because of a late discovery that she is a female with mixed ancestry.

The alternative false narrative rests on the proposition that Democrats are largely racists and sexists. Quite an insult and grossly untrue.

[oldsoftie]

12. And I'm sick of it. CONSTANT.

[sheshe2]

14. Sick of what?

[StarfishSaver]

28. Need you ask?

[sheshe2]

34. Not really.

sigh~

[oldsoftie]

111. Did you read the post i responded to?

There's always got to be some racial/sexist/classist/etc reason blamed instead of the most obvious reasons. And in a Democratic primary.
She didnt do a great job in her campaign & some folks had issues with her past actions as Atty Gen. Thats it. There are boogeymen out there. But there isnt one behind EVERY tree.

[ehrnst]

141. Not "instead" just "in addition to"

To say that WOC and their campaigns will be exempt from or not be affected by racism and misogyny just isn't accurate.

Mischaracterizing any mention of this racism or misogyny as somehow putting all the weight of a campaign failure on it is also inaccurate.

[sheshe2]

13. Nope.

The Valley Below
9. She ran a bad race. End of story.

No she did not.

And you nix that theory by saying...

Harris started off with a bang. Her supporters didn't suddenly peel off because of a late discovery that she is a female with mixed ancestry.

Liberal Democrats are more than ready to support a woman of color for president.

Sadly that is not true. Not women or WOC. The media and another's supporters had Hill in a coffin when she had pneumonia/ flu. He has a heart attack and it is said he is the healthiest man alive.

Harris had an affair and was dragged by the media. Man writes essays and, oh, he was just a kid. Her record as prosecutor was dragged through the dirt for incarceration rates and stance on drugs. Yet a mans pro votes on guns and anti sanctions on a country that helped steal our elections gets a pass.

The alternative false narrative rests on the proposition that Democrats are largely racists and sexists. Quite an insult and grossly untrue.

No where and I mean nowhere in the article states that. NOWHERE.

[The Valley Below]

21. The false narrritive only stands if one buys that Democratic voters are

racist and sexist. That's implicit in the Misogynoir argument.

It is pure bunkum.

As a diverse party, that values diversity, we will hopefully always have candidates who represent that diversity and some of them will lose races. And some will win.

If we make every loss an indictment of the party--and say that sexism, racism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry MUST BE the reason for the loss, instead of looking at real real issues, such as running a bad campaign--then we are in serious trouble.

Nothing could be more divisive that the implicit (and false) message that Democrat voters are sexist and racist and that's why Kamala Harris is out.

[sheshe2]

23. No.

Nothing could be more divisive that the implicit (and false) message that Democrat voters are sexist and racist and that's what Kamala Harris is out.

Again, none of that was said in the article. Not all, tough there are some. You also left out how the media played it:

"Ask yourself: why were pundits so eager for Harris to call it quits when Bloomberg and Steyer were polling about the same?"

"If Harris was doing so poorly and no one thinks she has a chance of winning, one has to wonder why Steyer stole her voter data in South Carolina."

"Why would Mike Bloomberg hire someone from Harris’s campaign just as the resignation letter was conveniently leaked to the New York Times? You do not go after anyone that you deem incompetent. Harris was a threat because she could bring together a powerful coalition of black women, the most reliable voting block for the Democrats."

[The Valley Below]

29. What pundits?

Pundits don't make the call. Candidates do.

Kamala Harris had tremendous support and then lost that support. That's not due to pundits, but is instead directly attributable to running a terrible campaign. She's my Senator. I've voter for her every time she's been on the ballot and I expect to continue in that fashion for a long time. I take no joy in the way her campaign fell apart. But she made some very bad choices.

Changing the goalpost of "misogynoir" from Democratic voters generally, to pundits, doesn't wash.

Harris lost support among our party members. In this case,"misogynoir" is a slur on our party and one that causes damage.

Imagine that it was Joe Biden that blew his race and had to drop out. What would it do to the party if his hypothetical mistakes were ignored and the blame for his exit was placed on anti-Catholicism? It would be damaging.

Let's not fall into these traps. We are better than that.

[sheshe2]

33. Read the article.

It happens to talk about the media.

[The Valley Below]

36. I read it. No named "pundits."

Harris went from a first-tier candidate to one who lost most of her support because she ran a terrible campaign.

Not because Democratic votes are sexist or racist or a combination of both.

The article is a slur on the Democratic Party. The Republicans will be thrilled if every candidate who drops out has their loss blamed on sexism,, racism, homophobia, anti-Catholicism, or anti-Semitism.

These sort of false narratives are a threat to our party. Democrats embrace diversity. In a field of 20 plus candidates we will only have one nominee.

[sheshe2]

54. Hm.

The article is a slur on the Democratic Party. The Republicans will be thrilled if every candidate who drops out has their loss blamed on sexism,, racism, homophobia, anti-Catholicism, or anti-Semitism.

Do not tell me there is no such thing. You are new here. Do not tell me there is no such thing in the Democratic party. We have our outliers and they are not our core base yet they exist. Right here on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND Hillary was called the 'C' word. Right here we had a poster call Obama a POSUCS( piece of shit used car salesman). Why? Because he did not research ACA and his wife's meds before he moved out of state. He blamed Obama. Right here we had a watermelon and fried chicken post on MLK Day. Right here we had several posts claiming black people suffered from Stockholm syndrome for the way they voted.

Fact.
These sort of narratives are a threat to our party.

[StarfishSaver]

55. Thank you, SheShe!

[The Valley Below]

57. Since when is being "new here" the measure of right and wrong?

Get over it. I've been on the planet for a good long time and have always been a loyal and active Democrat, as was the case with my parents and grandparents. Spare me the condescension.

If you are going to tell me that Kamala Harris's campaigned came apart because of racist-sexism in the Democratic Party, then I will call "bullshit!"

I supported HRC because I thought she was the best person for the job in 2016. Not because she was a woman, or despite her being female. And she was our party's nominee.

The same with Barack Obama in 2008 (and 2012).

No one is suggesting issues of race and gender are over in this country. But putting the failed campaign of Sen. Harris on racist-sexism in the Democratic Party is crap.

If we engage in this bullshit every time a contender exits the race, we will destroy the unity of the party.

Harris ran a bad campaign. She has no one to blame but herself and the advisors who had her ear.

[LanternWaste]

115. Failing to support a premise with objective data means you're wrong.

(and post hoc ergo promtper hoc fallacies will simply reinforce that)

Simply writing a list of unsupported allegation means no more than a series of bumper stickers on the back of a primer gray pickup.

Have a nice day. Keep on truckin'. My child is a Honor Roll student at Muleback Elementary.
That's not really much of an argument, is it.

[ehrnst]

131. What is actually "bullshit" is attacking the straw man that

people are saying the only reason that Kamala Harris is no longer running is mysognoir over and over and over and over again, as though spamming a thread with it will make others back down, or explode if not magically transform it into a real fact.

Also, the "I supported Hillary" defense concerning one's feminism bona fides akin to the "I supported Herman Cain/Ben Carson" RW defense against racism that one sees so often on twitter and FB...



Perhaps getting some sleep will help.

[MrsCoffee]

133. That's nothing but your opinion.

Get over yourself.

[ehrnst]

140. It seems there are two types of people:

A. Those who agree lockstep, and

B. Those who are spreading "toxic or false or dangerous narratives" (liars) that insult the Democratic Party as racist and misogynists.

According to some of the posts here, anyway.

Just preparing you for the response.

[The Valley Below]

152. More false narratives.

To re-quote you:

when one has nothing to really respond with, misrepresenting what the other person said is one way to act like one is still "winning." Like the pigeon on the chessboard.

[ehrnst]

154. More copy and paste in lieu of actually answering...

Just the response I was predicting!



Try to work in the "toxic" or "dangerous" talking point next time.

[mcar]

114. Pretending these narratives don't exist within the party is dangerous

We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to it - and to the way the media treats women candidates.

I was happy to hear on MSNBC yesterday afternoon a panel discussing the media's horrid treatment of HRC. The host just sat silently and didn't even try to argue back.

[ehrnst]

142. Yes, it is dangerous, and sounds far more RW than Democratic. (nt)

[The Valley Below]

144. Actually suggesting that racist-sexism is pervasive in the Democratic party

is what sounds RW to me.

What's next? Memes about the KKK?

Why do you think so poorly of Democrats?

We are not the party of bigotry. That's the exact opposite of who we are.

Sheez!

[ehrnst]

146. Yet another straw man. You're the only one positing that extreme claim here.

I suppose it makes people think that you are the one reasonable person in the discussion, and anyone who disagrees at all concerning Harris is INSULTING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS RACIST!!

What's next? Memes about the KKK?

You still haven't learned that I don't take bait. Next...

Why do you think so poorly of Democrats?

See above.

Lather, rinse, repeat....

[StarfishSaver]

147. I think it is more RW than Democratic

That's the point of the disruption.

[ehrnst]

148. You hit it on the head...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

167. I'll thank you not to besmirch the Democratic Party.

[True Blue American]

102. Thank you!

[mcar]

113. As a woman of color, Harris was held to a much higher standard

than the men in the race.

Everything you say here is true. The fact that some on this board are still arguing against it makes the whole situation even more bothersome.

[StarfishSaver]

122. It's bothersome, but it's also illustrative

Every time they push these BS arguments, they prove SheShe's point.

An essential element of erasure culture is telling us that what we see, hear and experience is a figment of our imagination. And they are falling all over themselves doing just that, seemingly oblivious to their display of and complicity in the very phenomenon we're discussing.

[StarfishSaver]

30. "Liberal Democrats are more than ready to support a woman of color for president"

... if only they could find a qualified one to support ... Since the lack of any qualified black women in politics is the only reason liberals Democrats never manage to actually ever support one.

[The Valley Below]

58. No man. Harris started with tremendous support and lost that support.

Are you suggesting everyone (or many) of those who defected from her campaign did so because they are sexist-racists?

Or that she didn't have even more support that she did for the same reasons?

I don't buy that for a second.

What's next? Are the black Americans who didn't support her going to be charted with "self-hate?" This is ridiculous, man.

Harris ran a terrible campaign. That's on her. Not a race thing.

This bulllshit is toxic.

[Hortensis]

106. Disagree. She made some mistakes, but she did far better than

most. She's joined the long and lengthening line of moderate liberals who failed to knock out and replace the moderate liberal front runner is all.

Btw, being a woman alone is a far greater handicap than any mistake she made. Being female is also a huge magnifier of not just mistakes but of anything that can possibly be warped to present as a mistake.

[ehrnst]

137. "false narrative"

That seems to be a talking point of yours.

Along with "toxic narrative" and that pointing out that WOC have to deal with misogynoir is "insulting the Demcoratic Party."

Both are "grossly untrue," and as you like to describe my posts - "intentional falsehoods."

I await the same straw men in response.





.

[spicysista]

11. Great article, she.

Thanks for linking!
"Black Women are the third least potected...behind children and prisoners" . Indeed.

[sheshe2]

15. Hey, spicysista.

You are welcome.

[betsuni]

16. I didn't know the term misogynoir. Thanks for posting!

[sheshe2]

19. Learn a word a day and use it where needed.

[The Valley Below]

22. Misogynoir is a neologism.

[sheshe2]

43. Why, yes it is.

A good one at that. Spot on.

[betsuni]

63. I'm sure there are also many oldlogisms I am unfamiliar with.

[tritsofme]

17. Strange premise. Maxine Waters is the only one on that list with legitimate grievance.

Reid faced proper ridicule for her homophobic anti-LGBT screeds and phony excuses.

Harris’ campaign failed, assign blame to the voters if you must.

[StarfishSaver]

31. Who determines whether a black woman's "grievance" is "legitimate"?

[MerryBlooms]

40. White fragility.

I am disappointed in the constant and not so subtle narrative, but not surprised. It's fucking exhausting just to read... I can't even imagine.

[StarfishSaver]

41. And this is from people who claim to be our allies

[tritsofme]

45. It's my opinion.

I don’t understand how some feel that Harris was somehow entitled to the nomination, or to do better than she did? Harris lost fair and square.

I’m not sure why this Joy Reid character is even in this mix? She said horribly homophobic things and then tried to make phony excuses. Whatever ridicule she had received was well deserved.

[StarfishSaver]

48. Who claimed she was "somehow entitled to the nomination"? I haven't seen anyone here do that

But it is tiresome seeing people completely dismiss the impacts of racism and misogyny in this race - as if racism and misogyny were a problem until 10 or 15 years ago but then suddenly vanished into thin air.

Women, particularly women of color, are sick of being told we don't know what we're talking about, that we're playing victim, or that the very real problems we see and try to explain are just figments of our imagination - or worse yet, an attempt on our part to play the victim (because that's such a fun game to play).

As has been said, if you think occasionally having to hear about racism and misogyny is tiring, imaging what it's like having to DEAL with it every day and, on top of that, being told by our allies that we're delusional whiners who are getting on their nerves by bringing it up before they think it's relevant.

[sheshe2]

56. Who said this?

I don’t understand how some feel that Harris was somehow entitled to the nomination,

Link to where this was stated. Thanks.

[tritsofme]

121. That seems to be the clear implication to me.

That any result that did not lead to Harris being the nominee, no matter how bad a campaign she ran, is tainted by racism.

[StarfishSaver]

129. No one said she was entitled to the nomination or anything close

Please stop using right wing racist tropes. It doesn't become you.

[tritsofme]

132. You may not realize it from your bubble, but that is how the argument sounds to many of us.

Personal insults, notwithstanding.

[StarfishSaver]

136. If that's how it sounds to you, you need to expand your horizons

Telling black women that WE'RE in a bubble because YOU haven't bothered to understand what we're telling you is a pretty stark admission of a rather narrow-minded and privileged mindset and worldview. But it's not surprising you can't hear what we're saying given how loudly the ear-splitting white privilege such a statement screams at you.

[tritsofme]

139. Not going to respond to this nonsense. Have a nice day.

[ehrnst]

155. When one actually doesn't want to respond, one doesn't respond that one is not going to respond...

[tritsofme]

156. Thanks for the internet posting etiquette lesson?

[ehrnst]

157. Thanks for your response to my response to your "not going to respond" response.

[tritsofme]

158. I'll wish you the same nice day I did the other.

[ehrnst]

160. Thanks for your further response.

[tritsofme]

161. You're welcome.

[True Blue American]

103. Joy Reid

Does more harm than good. I quit watching her long ago. Her bias is clear.

The Democratic Party should be United, not broke into factions.

[aeromanKC]

20. The VP will be an African American woman

Very good chance the AG and or other cabinet members as well. AND as VP the favorite on the 2028 ballot. (or 2024 if Biden only serves 1 term)

I get the OP, but African American women will be players in 2020 and beyond for and with the Dems.

[The Mouth]

24. I hope Senator Harris is appointed Secretary Of State

She would be great in that position because:
- building foreign policy expertise.
- it really suits a hardass who drives a tough bargain, which is Senator Harris to a 'T'
-I love the idea of our secretary of State, our main diplomat, being a woman of color.


VP is a dead end, more often than not. Let's see her go face to face with North Koreans and Saudis. I want my next POTUS to not only be a femal of color but have the deep experience of dealing with other countries.

[StarfishSaver]

32. It wasn't a dead end for Biden

Why would you warn a woman off a job that no woman has ever held?

"Trust me. You don't want this job. It's a dead end. Let the men do it..."

[The Mouth]

116. Secretary of State is quite a powerful job

as good as Veep as far as being ready for the next election and one really well suited to her talents, I think.

I sure as hell would rather be SOS than VP, and it would serve the USA better to have a 'take no shit' person like her in that role.

I'm not saying she wouldn't be an excellent VP.

[StarfishSaver]

119. You preferring to be SOS than VP doesn't mean VP is a "dead end"

And I think that Kamala Harris is a better judge of what is best suited to her talents than anyone on the internet giving her career advice and telling her she shouldn't be interested in holding the second highest office in the country.

[The Mouth]

120. Whatever

If you want an argument or wish to take insult, have at it without me.

[loyalsister]

25. K&R

I firmly believe that the most effective way to maintain white supremacy is to deny it exists. We have a lot of work to do!

[evertonfc]

26. She dropped out

period. As far as Reid, I just think she sucks.

[StarfishSaver]

35. The thing about misogynoirism is that most people who engage in it

are sure they have non-misogynoiristic justifications for it and don't even bother to consider whether they could have some issues they've never recognized.

Kamala Harris just dropped out. Joy Reid just sucks. I'd love to vote for a woman, just not THIS one. I think she's great, but other people won't vote for a black woman, so we shouldn't take a chance on her. And so on.

[The Valley Below]

38. Nonsense. You are accusing Democratic voters--including ones that supported Harris

and then backed out--of being latent racists, at minimum. That's bunk.

Harris make bad decisions and ran a bad race. She lost supporters instead of gaining ones.

That's politics.

[StarfishSaver]

39. If the foo shits ...

And there's foo shit all over the place, whether people are willing to admit it or no.

[The Valley Below]

64. The foo don't fit, you must acquit.

The Democratic Party celebrates diversity. You've got it wrong.

[ehrnst]

71. You seem to be blurring the Democratic Party ideals and platform with individual Democrats

That's where you seem to be going off track when people talk about about systemic and cultural misogynoir and how it affected Harris.

You're welcome.

No one ever believes they have any trace of racism or sexism - they simply state that "something else" is the reason for their dislike or judgement of a woman/POC. It gives them cover for an emotional response, a rationalization as it were.

Now, someone can indeed have genuine disagreements or differences with a WOC, but that doesn't negate that there is misogynoir involved.

Repeated protests that one is free of misogynoir - or that being a Democrat or identifying with the Democratic Party exempts one's opinions from misogynoir - isn't any more valid that a RWer saying that there is no way they or the GOP could be sexist or racist because the GOP had Sarah Palin, Herman Cain or Ben Carson as candidates.

[The Valley Below]

73. No man.

I don't believe that bigotry is the driving force of today's Democratic Party. Is is strange that you seem to think otherwise.

Kamala Harris had paltry support among WOC. You going to imply that WOC are some sorts of sexist-racists? That's bunk.

Her departure wasn't due to any ulterior motives by supporters who were disaffected from her campaign, or due to vague "emotional responses" or rationalizations that were a cover for misogynoir. No. She lost because she ran a bad campaign.

Comparing Democrats with right-wingers is a disgusting tactic. Really low. Have you always had such a lack of respect for Democrats? Not a good look.

[ehrnst]

75. Strawman.... no one said that bigotry is the driving force of today's Democrats.

That's a false characterization of anyone who disagrees with you about misogynoir.

Kamala Harris had paltry support among WOC. You going to imply that WOC are some sorts of sexist-racists? That's bunk.

Bringing out the big strawmen now. However, I don't defend strawmen other people set up to attack. And are you implying that black women should be expected to automatically support her in droves, because "WOC" and because "her people" seemed to be lower in numbers than you thought it should be that it's a sign she was really weak? I recall my uncle stating that Herman Cain said negative things about Obama, and if a black man was saying negative things about a brother, than then Obama must really be bad.

Her departure wasn't due to any alter motives by supporters who were disaffected from her campaign, or due to vague "emotional responses" or rationalizations that were a cover for misogynoir. No. She lost because she ran a bad campaign.

So, you're saying that she's not being honest that it was about money?

Comparing Democrats with right-wingers is a disgusting tactic. Really low. Have you always had such a lack of respect for Democrats? Not a good look.

Another strawman. Must've really hit a nerve. No, I said that denying that misogynoir exists is a GOP RW narrative. Nice try, but I'm not going to defend that one you set up either. Attempting to baiting or needle when one has run out of logical responses is also really low.

Next.

[The Valley Below]

79. Harris lacking support in the black community isn't a strawman.

Those are the facts--or as close to the facts as scientific polling can get.

I never said or implied that black women should be expected to automatically support. You are making stuff up out of whole cloth.

The false narrative that Kamala Harris is out do to misogynoir, suggests that she'd be running strong if not for rampant racist-sexism in the Democratic Party. Since Harris polled badly with WOC, then they too must be guilty of misogynoir if this false narrative was correct. Of course it isn't correct. It is a toxic lie that smears our party as racist and sexist.

Strange ideas to read on a pro-Democratic website.

[ehrnst]

85. Ok... here we go...

Harris lacking support in the black community isn't a strawman.

I didn't say Harris' support among "the black community" was the strawman. I was pointing out about how you just expected POC to fall in behind her, because, you know... was rather insulting. But mischaracterizing what I said seems to be easier.

I never said or implied that black women should be expected to automatically support. You are making stuff up out of whole cloth.

You stated that expectation, and used it as a metric to talk about how 'weak' she was as a candidate. I call em as I read em.

The false narrative that Kamala Harris is out do to misogynoir, suggests that she'd be running strong if not for rampant racist-sexism in the Democratic Party.

You are making up that narrative up out of whole cloth.

Since Harris polled badly with WOC, then they too must be guilty of misogynoir if this false narrative was correct.

That statement only makes sense if you believe that as a WOC, one must buy into the premise that "the black community" have just been falling in behind her in droves, and if they didn't, that meant she was REALLY a weak candidate. Like I heard from RWers every time a black person criticized Obama, that was "proof" he was weak, because one of his people wasn't going to get in line behind him, and they normally always do.

Strange ideas to read on a pro-Democratic website.

Of course it isn't correct. It is a toxic lie that smears our party as racist and sexist.

Do you have that ready to copy and paste to anyone who disagrees with you? You seem to think that I'm going to take the bait and defend that strawman if you repeat it often enough as a response. You clearly are upset at being corrected as to the difference between the Democratic Party Platform and ideals, and the individual voters that identify as Democrats. It seems to serve as a moving goalpost, logically speaking.



Next...

[The Valley Below]

88. No. You pointed out something that isn't true (for the second time) and its not something...

that I ever said. You are inventing falsehoods.

I never said I expected "expected POC to fall in behind her, because, you know." That's your invention. It is a personal attack and it is unwarranted. Is this what you do when people disagree with you? Invent falsehoods and imply they are like right-wingers?

That not right.

Kamala Harris was at 3% support when she dropped out. You blame that on rampant racist-sexism in the Democratic Party.

I call bullshit on that lie.

I don't understand what your deal is. Seems weird, man. Really weird.

The Democratic Party values diversity. Kamala Harris had tremendous goodwill when she entered the race. She was top-tier. A definite contender. She squandered that by running a bad campaign. That's the reason she's out.

[ehrnst]

92. "inventing falsehoods" So you're calling me a liar.

I must have REALLY hit the nail on the head. Projection?

I never said I expected "expected POC to fall in behind her, because, you know." That's your invention. It is a personal attack and it is unwarranted. Is this what you do when people disagree with you? Invent falsehoods and imply they are like right-wingers?

You've made that the basis for your argument that she was a weak candidate: "the black community wasn't getting behind her." So yes, you, as you say "suggested that."

That not right.

It is but not because of the reason you gave...

Kamala Harris was at 3% support when she dropped out. You blame that on rampant racist-sexism in the Democratic Party.

You invented that falsehood - also known as attacking a strawman. Legions of them now.

I call bullshit on that lie.

You invented that out of whole cloth.

I don't understand what your deal is. Seems weird, man. Really weird.

Back at ya!

The Democratic Party values diversity.

Another copy and paste reply that substitutes for a response, and somehow you seem to think that by simply repeating it, it makes your positions more valid.

Kamala Harris had tremendous goodwill when she entered the race. She was top-tier. A definite contender. She squandered that by running a bad campaign. That's the reason she's out.

No, misogynoir also played a part, adding stressors to her campaign, causing her to have to veer off from her message to deal with the issues that WOC deal with that other candidate who are white males do not.

Here is some information for you on that. You're welcome.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/03/226449/kamala-harris-personal-connection-campaign-sexist-criticism

https://www.thenation.com/article/kamala-harris-willie-brown/

https://www.salon.com/2019/05/02/how-misogyny-and-sexism-are-already-shaping-the-2020-race_partner/

https://www.mediamatters.org/maga-trolls/sexist-right-wing-smear-against-kamala-harris-moves-fever-swamps-fox

https://medium.com/@kitanyaharrison/what-does-being-black-enough-mean-for-kamala-harris-da38b2d1fdd0

[The Valley Below]

94. I never said the thing you claimed I said. You invented them. Call that what you will.

It certainly isn't the truth.

Sorry if saying the Democratic Party values diversity seems to offend you. I know that plays against your narrative here. But it is important to me as a Democrat. And it bears repetition when the party is falsely attacked as one filled with racist-sexist bigots.



Saying Kamala Harris was at 3% when she dropped out isn't a strawman. LOL. That was the state of the race.

Whatever. See ya

[ehrnst]

96. Of course you claim that. But remember, everyone else here can read it.

Sorry if saying the Democratic Party values diversity seems to offend you. I know that plays against your narrative here.

Most Spectacular strawman!! Perhaps being angry is distracting you, but when someone demonstrates repeatedly that they don't take the bait, continuing to bait them makes one look rather slow to learn, or one isn't really reading posts before responding to them in a hasty manner.

But it is important to me as a Democrat. And it bears repetition when the party is falsely attacked as one filled with racist-sexist bigots.

Even bigger straw man!! Must be exhausting setting those guys up and going after them.

Saying Kamala Harris was at 3% when she dropped out isn't a strawman.

Never said it was. But when one has nothing to really respond with, misrepresenting what the other person said is one way to act like one is still "winning." Like the pigeon on the chessboard.

Whatever. See ya

As someone said this thread stated...

I call bullshit on that lie.

[The Valley Below]

99. Yes, they can see what I wrote and what you claimed I wrote. And how they don't match.

I'm not angry. I just don't get why you think "individual" Democrats are so prone to a sort of bigotry that's totally against the principles of our party. I see things very differently.

That's based on cool-headed reason. And a long experience in Democratic Party politics. We are way better than you suggest.

Never said it was. But when one has nothing to really respond with, misrepresenting what the other person said is one way to act like one is still "winning." Like the pigeon on the chessboard.

Precisely. Glad to see you recognize that. Stop doing that. OK?

[tritsofme]

118. You should have just went to bed!

Wow...

[ehrnst]

126. Exhaustion might indeed be one explanation for the the posts. (nt)

Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2019, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)

[ehrnst]

125. The "I know you are but what am I?" rebuttal.

When you just have nothing else left to say.

[ismnotwasm]

47. So you believe race and gender had absolutely nothing to do with it

To you, racism and sexism are literally not a thing in Democratic races anymore and every person makes it or not on virtue alone? Be aware that personal picking and choosing when racism and sexism is a factor and when it is not, isn’t exactly a logical stance.

To me, they are always factors. To you, I’m assuming they are factored in specific circumstances, but not in politics because we’ve apparently moved beyond all that.

[The Valley Below]

52. Your questions are not the same as the claims being made about misogynoir.

And they deflect from the falseness of the narrative being drawn here, a false narrative that slanders our party.

Harris did not lose active supporters due to racism and sexism. To argue otherwise makes no sense. People didn't suddenly wake up to the fact that Harris is a woman of mixed ancestry and end their support for her on that basis. No, she lost supporters because she made ran a bad campaign.

I see zero evidence that "misogynoir" was a factor in Harris. And plenty of evidence that she lost good-will because of her own mistakes and the mistakes of her campaign.

These are the real reasons her campaign failed. Not because Democratic voters are sexist-racists.

[ehrnst]

65. The false narrative is that racism and sexism don't come into play in 2019

when it comes to candidates, even in the Demcocratic Party.

That's not "slander of Democrats," that's pointing out the reality that we are not in a "post racial" society, like the GOP claims.

[The Valley Below]

66. The Democratic Party is not the home of racists and bigots.

Kamala Harris didn't lose this contest due to the racist-sexism of Democrats.

Suggesting otherwise certainly is a slur on the party and flies in the face of reality.

She ran a bad campaign. Her mistakes cost her support. Support that she had, and lost. That's on her and her staff.

Toxic falsehoods about our party are destructive as hell. It is a gift to the Republicans that we can not afford.

[ehrnst]

67. Since when has identifying as a Democrat rendered one free of racism or sexism?

Kamala Harris didn't lose this contest due to the racist-sexism of Democrats.

Denying that it was a factor is a failure to acknowledge the pervasiveness of racism and sexism.

Suggesting otherwise certainly is a slur on the party and flies in the face of reality.

False dillemma. Stating it was a factor is not sluring the party.

She ran a bad campaign. Her mistakes cost her support. Support that she had, and lost. That's on her and her staff.

The way the campaign was run or not run does not negate the effect of systemic sexism and racism on the campaign, and its impact on women of color running for office. It would be there if she ran a "perfect" campaign, and would create obstacles and stresses for her campaign that aren't there for white men.

Toxic falsehoods about our party are destructive as hell. It is a gift to the Republicans that we can not afford.

Another strawman - to acknowledge the existence of racism and misogyny is not a "toxic falsehod." The toxic falsehood is that racism and sexism do not affect Democratic candidates of women of color, or somehow just don't exist in any Democrat.

Repeating it in post after post after post does not change reality.

[The Valley Below]

69. Kamala Harris had 3% support when she dropped out.

Are you saying that 97% of Democrats are sexist-racists--including the vast majority of African Americans, and African American women in particular? Because I'll call bullshit on this line of attack on the people in our party.

Kamala Harris started as a first tier candidate with widespread enthusiasm and goodwill in the party, even from those who may have had another favorite. IMS when I was in "lurking" she held the number one slot here on DU. Are all those who pealed off to be suspected of racist-sexism? Come on, man. That's nonsense.

Had she run a brilliant campaign, Kamala Harris could have won the nomination. But she didn't accomplish that.

The strawman here is to suggest that holding Kamala Harris was responsible for her campaign going south is equivalent to believing racism and sexism don't exist. That's a totally bogus argument.

What not a strawman is that if we blame every candidate's failure on unfounded changes of bigotry, we won't have a coalition left that can beat the Republicans. So these toxic false narratives are not only untrue, they are dangerous.

[ehrnst]

74. You must have found a sale on strawmen to attack...

Are you saying that 97% of Democrats are sexist-racists--including the vast majority of African Americans, and African American women in particular? Because I'll call bullshit on this line of attack on the people in our party.

What's bullshit is characterizing anyone who disagrees with you about misogynoir or Kamala Harris that way.

Kamala Harris started as a first tier candidate with widespread enthusiasm and goodwill in the party, even from those who may have had another favorite. IMS when I was in "lurking" she held the number one slot here on DU. Are all those who pealed off to be suspected of racist-sexism? Come on, man. That's nonsense.

Strawman.... again, when one needs to mischaracterize someone's argument to debate them, one really should rethink the basis of one's position...

The strawman here is to suggest that holding Kamala Harris was responsible for her campaign going south is equivalent to believing racism and sexism don't exist. That's a totally bogus argument.

That's a bogus characterization of people's statements here that don't agree with you.

What not a strawman is that if we blame every candidate's failure on unfounded changes of bigotry, we won't have a coalition left that can beat the Republicans. So these toxic false narratives are not only untrue, they are dangerous.

Again...false dillemma strawman combo. No one is blaming "every candidate." And disagreeing with you on Harris = dangerous toxic narrative?



The narrative that misogynoir doesn't really impact candidates of women of color is the dangerous toxic one.

You seem to forget that Democrats are the party that acknowledges bigotry and misogyny are very much a part of our culture. The GOP is in the other camp, spreading the lie that we are "postracial."

But do go on.

[The Valley Below]

76. Pot. Kettle. Black.

It is a completely false narrative that Kamala Harris is out of the 2020 race due to sexist-racism in the Democratic Party. I'm offended that you keep doubling down on an offensive slur that is completely bogus.

Sen. Harris didn't find significant support in either the black community at large or among African American women in particular.

Will you insult these members of our coalition by suggesting they are sexist-racists for not giving Harris their support? This is nuts!

And hell yes, it is toxic. Incredibly toxic.

We are a party that celebrates diversity.

[ehrnst]

77. Is this the "I know you are, but what am I?" rebuttal?

It is a completely false narrative that Kamala Harris is out of the 2020 race due to sexist-racism in the Democratic Party. I'm offended that you keep doubling down on an offensive slur that is completely bogus.

Strawman. People are saying that misogynoir was a factor in stressing and creating different standards for her and her campaign and the campaign of every WOC.

Sen. Harris didn't find significant support in either the black community at large or among African American women in particular.

I'm offended that you expected black women to automatically support her, as though WOC all think alike.

Will you insult these members of our coalition by suggesting they are sexist-racists for not giving Harris their support? This is nuts!

Where did I say that? Another strawman...

And hell yes, it is toxic. Incredibly toxic.

Denial that misogynoir affects WOC candiates? Absolutely toxic, and it's a GOP talking point.

We are a party that celebrates diversity.

What does that have to do with the way the public displays misogynoir? You seem to continue to mistakenly equate the Democratic Party platform with the POV of individual Democrats, even though you've been corrected on that several times. Being a Democrat doesn't innoculate one from systemic bigotries - it's a matter of degree, not a matter of whether or not one has it. It does make it easier for you to equate disagreeing with you that misogynoir exists with insulting the Democratic Party.

Just reply with "Toxic narrative!!" and that'll show em.


Do go on.

[The Valley Below]

91. Toxic narrative.

And full of "inventions" about things you keep claiming that I've said, that I haven't said.

Strange.

You don't seem very impressed with the quality of individual Democrats. I get the impression that we must be a party filled with bigots from your POV.

That's not my feeling in any way share or form. I'm proud to be a Democrat. And proud to be part of a party that celebrates diversity.

Oh well.

[ehrnst]

93. "Toxic narrative" in place of an answer again...

What is that 7 or 8 times it's been deployed in an effort to bait?

And full of "inventions" about things you keep claiming that I've said, that I haven't said.

Projection..

You don't seem very impressed with the quality of individual Democrats. I get the impression that we must be a party filled with bigots from your POV.

Like I said, I don't defend straw men other people set up and attack. You have armies of them. The fish aren't biting....

That's not my feeling in any way share or form. I'm proud to be a Democrat. And proud to be part of a party that celebrates diversity.

I myself feel that misogyny and bigotry exist, and need to be called out and dealt with. And that anyone who claims to be free of either in some way isn't really self aware. Especially if they go on a rant when it's brought up.

Oh well.

Bummer. Heavy sigh. Toxic even. White fragility....

[mcar]

117. Most Democratic voters haven't decided yet

I believe the # is 31% in Iowa who haven't decided.

Had she run a brilliant campaign, Kamala Harris could have won the nomination. But she didn't accomplish that.

Please indicate which candidates still in the race are running "brilliant" campaigns. They all must be, if that's the criteria.

Of course, none of them are running brilliant campaigns. Only one was held to that standard, though. See?

[ehrnst]

127. I see what you did there.

[StarfishSaver]

138. This sounds so familiar. Where have I heard this before?

Oh, yes.

"I supported Hillary Clinton, but you have to admit that she was a flawed candidate."

[mcar]

145. Yep

[ehrnst]

159. Right up there as an evasion of the topic of race as

"I marched with MLK !!!"

[The Mouth]

149. Well, Joe is, if not running a brilliant campaign,

reaping the results of many years of building his organization and planning this run.

IT takes more than a couple of years to prepare an effective run for President. Unless one has the immense charisma of Obama, that is.

Hillary and Biden both had decades to build those mailing lists, earn those favors to call in; that's a huge obstacle to all the other candidates. Yang, Pete and all the others besides Warren are at a massive disadvantage just on organization. Warren has been higher profile nationally for longer.

And Misogynoir can play a time-delay roll here; if it takes, in actuality, 10+ years to really put an organization in place for someone well known nationally like Hillary or Biden, having to deal with being a woman of color isn't going to make that easier, even if there were not a single racist or sexist in our party currently, the real race started long before any candidate announced.

As a WOC she was held to that touchy higher standard- be too aggressive and you're 'bitchy', respond as Biden did a couple of days ago and you'd be 'too emotional' etc. And black folks seem to always have to be better just to be even. Combine the misogynoir factor with having 1/5th the time Joe has to build infrastructure, with being a first term senator (JFK and Obama both were, but both had time in the House, too) which doesn't often yield that much chance to build favors to call in or usually get much national attention and you have a hell of an uphill slog.

[True Blue American]

104. 100%

[Demsrule86]

151. No...it was her time as AG and DA that hurt her with AA votes...it wasn't white voters that had her

with such low numbers...it was Black voters. And I didn't hear anyone asking her to drop out...she made the debates...but was not getting money. She made mistakes...attacking Biden for one...and also not addressing her time as DA/AG the first time Gabbard brought it up.

[BlueMTexpat]

72. Great synopsis!

Kamala Harris just dropped out. Joy Reid just sucks. I'd love to vote for a woman, just not THIS one. I think she's great, but other people won't vote for a black woman, so we shouldn't take a chance on her. And so on.

In 2016, we had the MOST and BEST qualified candidate for President in Hillary Clinton. Yet, the "I'd love to vote for a woman, just not THIS one," was a refrain heard and seen over and over again! From self-styled DEMOCRATS!

Now that meme is being used specifically against Elizabeth Warren. You can also be sure that it would be used against Amy Klobuchar if she were seen to be more of a threat in the polls.

Of course, there are other, IMO more disingenuous, arguments against Elizabeth as well. But if she were NOT a woman, those others would likely fade away. Quietly. They certainly would not be stressed.

Kamala Harris already had two strikes against her before she even got into the race.

[The Valley Below]

82. You didn't hear that from me.

I thought HRC was terrific and still do.

I wept on election night. Both because of the hideous man who was elected in her stead and because we'd missed out on an opportunity to have an amazing person as our next president. What a missed opportunity.

I must not have been alone and HRC was our nominee. I hoped she'd pick Warren as her VP. I felt it would help heal the party and that they were electric together.

[BlueMTexpat]

84. I am glad that you

didn't say or write that and voted for HRC.

But that does not discount the fact that many did say it and did not vote for Hillary when she was the GE nominee!

YOU may not be sexist or racist, but that does not discount the fact that many are.

[brooklynite]

46. Suppose Harris had made it through December and failed to make the debate in January...

...would that be equally "unfair"? How about February? How about Super Tuesday?

Is any outcome other than Harris being the nominee an acceptable outcome?

[ismnotwasm]

49. That is disingenuous and I expect better of you

One can discuss the flaws of Kamala Harris as a candidate while at the same time acknowledge the fact of institutional racism and sexism quite literally built into our political systems.

[brooklynite]

50. ...and one can discuss the facts of racism and sexism without tying them to one candidate...

...who had clear organizational flaws in her campaign.

[ismnotwasm]

51. You can't separate folks race out out like yolk and white from an egg

They are part and parcel of any individual of color. In this case, it’s a real a discussion because there have been so few black women who made it that far. One has to ask why. The answers are pretty clear.

[StarfishSaver]

53. We can talk about racism and sexism but not about individuals who are affected by them?

You seem to be one of those who is always willing to acknowledge that racism and sexism exist but never seem to recognize - and in fact are very quick to deny - it when it actually occurs.

Surely you don't believe that the only or even primary reason we've never had a black woman president is that, so far, no black woman has ever run an effective campaign? And if a black woman had actually run a strong campaign at some point in our history, she would have been nominated and elected president, just like the hundreds of white men who were nominated for president managed to do.

Or do you recognize that racism and sexism has impacted the ability of black women - any and every black woman - to be elected president, but when faced with a particular black woman, you assume that that racism and misogyny you admit is present didn't in any way affect HER?

[The Valley Below]

60. No. What you don't seem to understand is that modern Democrats understand the lessons of history

and understand the impacts of racism and gender inequality quite well.

Democrats are committed to smashing down barriers. We embrace diversity and take cheer in our victories and mourn our losses.

Most Democrats were pulling for Kamala Harris. She wasn't the victim of the racist-sexism of Democratic Party voters. You've got that very wrong.

She ran a poor campaign. That's what doomed her campaign.

[ismnotwasm]

112. Not her race or gender, not at all?

You are saying Kamala Harris experienced nothing that affected her campaign that had anything to do with her race or her gender, that about it?

[sheshe2]

61. Pete seems to have a few organizational issues himself.

Closed door fundraisers.

I have no issues with Pete. He is not on my radar. Yet you attack Harris.

[brooklynite]

108. I don't care what you think of Pete...

The fact that I support him doesn't mean it's my goal to advocate for him here, because what happens here has no impact on the actual Primary outcome. And I'm not attacking Harris; if critiquing her campaign.

As for "organization issues", closed door fundraisers aren't a problem to most Democrats. They certainly weren't for Elizabeth Warren in her Senate campaigns. And they definitely aren't for Pete since he has the funds to run robust campaign, unlike most other candidates.

[radius777]

59. White left on social media targeted Kamala for destruction.

They memed her as 'Cop-mala' and smeared her record, and worked to turn minorities against her.

In the white left's minds she was the black Hillary and a similar playbook was used against her. Joy Reid had an excellent segment on this on her Sunday show, that also highlighted the Russian role in this.

Don't worry, PoC/women/etc are watching, karma is a B. You take out one of our rising stars - the civil rights movement doesn't sleep and doesn't forget.

As Marcus Johnson described in his excellent piece there is a growing rift in the party, where the white left is attempting to erase white supremacy (which is not a class issue, but a human rights issue) as the root of oppression, and redefine it in race-neutral class struggle terms. Basically they pine for the old FDR/Dixiecrat party that turned a blind eye to racism, sexism etc while the white man got a New Deal.

If you look at social media, and even in the comment section of that article, the white left has this misconception that once their redefinition of the party is complete they will still hold onto the Obama coalition because 'who else are they going to vote for?'. This reasoning is deeply flawed, as turnout and voter enthusiasm is always an issue.

[The Valley Below]

62. So Democratic Party loyalists are now responsible for the abberent behavior of the far-leftists

on the lunatic fringe? Jill Stein supporters and other non-Democrats who are making war on our party.

That's not us.

Harris didn't keep enough supporters--of any ethnicity, including African Americans--to stay in the race. That's due to a terrible campaign strategy.

Not because the Democratic Party in the 21st Century longs to be the new Dixiecrat Party. That's a toxic argument and one that's totally false.

For most Democrats having a WOC on the ticket would be a huge plus. Many of us are disappointed that Kamala Harris made such bad choices.

[ehrnst]

68. Another straw man combined with a false dillema....

To disagree with you about racism and sexism does not = "slurring the Demcoratic Party."

You seem to be blurring the distinction between the ideals of the Demcoratic Party and platform, and the reality of misogynoir in our culture, including to different extents, in those who vote Democratic.

The toxic argument being posited is that Kamala Harris' candidacy was somehow unaffected by misogynoir, as if the GOP was correct in their claims that it doesn't exist in this day and age. No one is colorblind. No one. And misogyny is as pervasive, if not more so than racism.

I think that some who didn't like Harris are going to try to work very hard to convince themselves and others that there is not a trace of misogynoir in their own view of her.

Very hard.

[The Valley Below]

70. No. The false narrative suggests that racist-sexism among Democratic voters

is why Kamala Harris had to exit the race. And that's a grotesque lie.

I like Kamala Harris. I've voted for her every time she's been on my ballot here in CA. Primaries and general elections.

I take no joy in the fact that she ran a terrible campaign. But that's the case.

That's why she's out.

[Pachamama]

78. +100000

As a longtime Harris fan and supporter and someone who knows her through social circles here in CA for over 25 years (and just switched my choice to Biden after she dropped out)...

I completely agree with all you have said.

Thank you

[The Valley Below]

86. As someone who likes Kamala Harris--as I do as well--did you have moments during this campaign

when you wondered where the person you thought you knew had gone?

I think if Kamala had been completely authentic to who she is, instead to veering from lane to lane to lane, that she'd have had staying power. She has a lot of appeal. This campaign was not her at her best.

I'm sorry that was the case. I was hoping to see her do well.

[Pachamama]

95. She was indeed being advised incorrectly by people within her campaign & it was a poorly run one

If you look back in the DU way back machine, you will see that I posted comments on this especially following the debate where she attacked Joe Biden. I mentioned at that time that it was a big mistake and people that know her a long time in the Democratic Party and social circles that have supported her for decades (and still do) were very upset and concerned at the time and thought it was a mistake that she went after Joe. I even stated that I felt her husband Doug Emhoff is a liability to her and I know he is one of the people along with her sister who was advising and directing her on the campaign. I got assailed for stating this, even though I am a big supporter of her. I stated it because I saw what was happening and it was the truth. Telling it somehow made me “bad”.

Harris had a bad campaign and made mistakes in having her sister and husband be the driving force and decision making advisors behind it. That isn’t racist or sexist.

Harris will be fine and has a great future ahead of her and my hope is she learned from her mistake and won’t have her sister and husband running any political campaigns in future for her.

Sexism, racism had nothing to do with Kamala dropping in polls and support and success - nepotism did.

[The Valley Below]

97. At that moment in the debate I turned to my wife--who also like Kamala Harris--and I said she's just

killed her campaign. I even predicted she'd get a short-term bump. But the cheap shot was a huge blunder.

I also understand from people i know inside her camp that Doug Emhoff was a liability and having her sister in charge was a bad idea. You got that right.

Kamala Harris's problems in this race were due to mistakes of hers and her campaign, and not--as you rightly state--because of rampant racist-sexism in the Democratic party.

If every candidate who fails to win the nomination blames bigotry for his or her loss--instead of accepting the voters had other ideas--then we are finished. What a shame that would be.

[True Blue American]

105. I agree!

[ehrnst]

80. Nope. They are saying misogynoir was a factor, because it always is for WOC.

To deny that it is a factor is, well, as someone said earlier, "This is nuts!"

Now proceed with the same false dillemas that come up in every response where you are corrected on this.

[The Valley Below]

83. No. They are saying it was THE factor. It wasn't.

THE factor was that Harris ran a terrible campaign. She lost support that she had.

I haven't been "corrected" on anything. You keep getting it wrong. Really wrong.

And you keep doubling down on a toxic slur aimed at the Democratic Party. It's bunk.

[ehrnst]

87. Who is "they?"

THE factor was that Harris ran a terrible campaign. She lost support that she had.

However true that is or isn't, that still doesn't negate the effect misogynoir had on her and all WOC. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that indeed misogynoir doesn't exist in our society, or that voting Democratic allows one to say that they have no trace of bigotry, sexism or heaven forfend both. I take it you believe that you are unencumbered by that which all else are to one degree or another?

I haven't been "corrected" on anything. You keep getting it wrong. Really wrong.

You have, and your anger about it reveals that.

And you keep doubling down on a toxic slur aimed at the Democratic Party. It's bunk.

And we have the "toxic slur/narrative" copy and paste baiting accusation standing in for a logical rebuttal for a bingo!

(I think it's 6 accross at this point.)

[The Valley Below]

89. nah. You are projecting and engaging in insults.

I'm done with you and your attacks on the Democratic Party as a hot-bed of sexist-racism.

These false narratives are depressing. I have a lot higher opinion of my fellow Democrats than you seem to have.

[ehrnst]

98. "False narrative" this time. Run out of "toxic?"

I'm done with you and your attacks on the Democratic Party as a hot-bed of sexist-racism.

So why did you invent them out of whole cloth in the first place?

These false narratives are depressing. I have a lot higher opinion of my fellow Democrats than you seem to have.

You just don't give up, do you, Hon.

[The Valley Below]

100. To quote you:

when one has nothing to really respond with, misrepresenting what the other person said is one way to act like one is still "winning." Like the pigeon on the chessboard.

Irony is dead.

[ehrnst]

124. I wasn't the one who killed irony in this thread...

[whathehell]

109. Divisive much?...There's no "white left", "black left" or "brown left"

Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2019, 08:50 AM - Edit history (2)

It's The Left. It represents a set of shared principles and beliefs, not colors.

[StarfishSaver]

135. One thing people don't seem to understand

is that black women don't need to have been Kamala supporters to recognize that she was held to a different standard.

So all of these, "If racism and sexism affected Kamala's campaign, why did more African Americans support Biden" type responses are pure BS. Black voters and black women voters in particular aren't a monolith and we don't vote for candidate just because they're black. And we can prefer a white candidate over a black one without thinking that the black candidate is bad or ineffective or unworthy. And we can still prefer a white candidate AND see that the black candidate is being treated differently.

Don't get it twisted. Don't think that the fact that more black voters seemed to support other candidates gives racism and sexism a pass. We can see exactly what happened to Kamala and we can see how certain people are trying to tell us that it had nothing to do with her race or gender when we damned well know better.

[Hortensis]

90. A black woman runs for president and that's "erasure"?

Nonsense. She did well, which very few did. Then she didn't sustain, one in a long and lengthening line

Some things we can know: AA are 13% of all Americans, and in 2016 they were 12% of all those who voted -- awesome citizenship among both liberal and conservative AA. 87% of AA identify as or lean Democrat, only 8% Republican.

Even if some don't want to admit it now, Kamala Harris's total support, black, white and everything else, was as high as, what? 19%? and then dropped precipitously instead of growing. Ultimately, the powerful AA bloc did not support Kamala Harris's candidacy, but if they had, the white Democrats who are also committed to defeating the Republicans would have continued to take Harris as seriously as we did in the beginning. Dumping Biden for her? Only if she somehow shot well ahead and stayed there. Never was going to happen.

This is the electability election. That's a real catch-22 for the whole group Kamala's part of, a dozen or more qualified moderate liberals who flocked in to unseat Biden. BUT, turns out that to win voter support, a candidate has to already be out ahead. Good trick when one started 30 points ahead of all the rest.

WaPo 3 days ago:

It’s certainly true that black voters support black Democratic candidates at higher rates, often in terms of both turnout and vote share. But analysis of past elections and campaigns shows that black voters have never prioritized simple descriptive representation over other factors, like party affiliation, campaign viability, candidate electability, preexisting relationships with the black community and a sense of authenticity. Sen. Barack Obama had to prove his viability by winning white Democrats in Iowa before his black support materialized, a hurdle that many black candidates, from Shirley Chisholm and Al Sharpton to Booker and Harris, have not managed to clear. As several black voters recently told the New York Times: “Representation is not enough.”

[PunkinPi]

107. Thanks for posting, sheshe.

I've been posting about this for a while, mostly in the Kamala group.

Polls Subvert Democracy: Media's willful erasure of Kamala Harris' campaign

The Whitewashing of Kamala Harris

Why are Democrats leaving Kamala Harris to stand alone?

This one was posted by DesertRat ( )

Kamala Harris isn't 'electable'? It could be code for not being a white man

She was my candidate from the start, my heart is still sad that she isn't in the race any more.

K&R

[Hortensis]

110. I hate race riots on DU.

Eyes on the prize or risk losing everything.

[PunkinPi]

123. Just going to leave this here...

[StarfishSaver]

128. Thanks. Here's some company for it ...

[sheshe2]

153. +1000

PunkinPi.

[PunkinPi]

162. Again, thanks for the thread and...

back at ya, sheshe!

[sheshe2]

164. You are very welcome.

[MrsCoffee]

130. I think Biden will choose her for VP.

I think that’s why she dropped out early.

[MrsCoffee]

134. K&R

[TCJ70]

143. She seems to have erased herself.

She qualified for the Dec debate but dropped out due to funding issues.

[mcar]

150. Two Harvard studies converge on a conclusion that black women are judged more harshly for their mist

Link to tweet

?s=19

Two Harvard studies converge on a conclusion that black women are judged more harshly for their mistakes.

A black woman can say something that’s 90% right and they will pick apart the error. A white man says something 60% correct and people will see the merit.

Link to tweet

?s=19

[PunkinPi]

163. Great addition, mcar! nt

[corbettkroehler]

168. Misogynoir - An Accurate And Depressing Neologism

How sad that we have fallen this far! This most unfortunate development reinforces the importance of the diversity of the 2018 blue wave in the U.S. House.