If you believe that Warren lost because of sexism and misogyny...

[brooklynite]

...why aren't you now supporting Gabbard? If you can find non-sexist reasons not to support her, why doesn't the same apply to Warren?

[pazzyanne]

1. Ummm, try her platform, or lack there of.

Gabbard has no "real" platform and plan.

[still_one]

4. +++

[at140]

2. I might switch to Gabbard because she is the only remaining woman,,nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. Don't be a dick.

[DURHAM D]

7. .

[NurseJackie]

10. Thank you.

[HarlanPepper]

12. Agreed!

[KPN]

16. ....

[mcar]

17. Well said

[zackymilly]

19. That's a sexist term!

[Squinch]

39. Thank you for saying this.

[BeyondGeography]

42. Snort

You’re asking a lot.

[KT2000]

49. thank you

[StarfishSaver]

56. Somebody had to say it

Thank you.

[PunkinPi]

65. This. nt

[we can do it]

67. To the point!

[sheshe2]

77. !!!!

[Sparkly]

79. .

Thank you.

[hlthe2b]

5. Oh, please. This is ridiculous. Please don't turn societal problems that influence perception of

women candidates, the way in which the media and some of the electorate treat them and their challenges-- as though concerned women are merely looking for two X chromosomes. That is ridiculous and as inappropriate as to suggest that AA or any POC want only to check the race/ethnicity box if they make claims about inequities and race-based challenges for those candidates.

To believe Warren lost for reasons not related to gender is one thing and I think that case is sound. But to suggest gender-based factors could not have been a factor AT ALL is to ignore what is and has gone on for decades.

[brooklynite]

24. Sorry you're offended, but plenty of voices here say she lost ONLY because of sexism

[TwilightZone]

35. And you seem to be asserting that it wasn't a factor at all.

The truth, clearly, is in the middle somewhere. There are myriad reasons for any loss, though many seem to want it boiled down to something simplistic.

That doesn't make your assertion any more accurate than the ones you're mocking.

[mcar]

66. I haven't seen anyone here, or elsewhere, say that Warren lost ONLY because of sexism

Can you provide links?

[sheshe2]

80. I never read that anyone claimed it was the sole reason she lost.

Not one person.

[MLAA]

33. +1000

[highplainsdem]

6. If you believe that Warren lost b/c of sexism/misogny, that doesn't say much for the left wing of

party, where she and Sanders were competing.

[KPN]

22. Can you elaborate on that?

Why just the left?

[highplainsdem]

29. Because that's their lane.

[KPN]

43. Young women actually make up a greater share of Sanders' base than men.

So, keep trying.

[highplainsdem]

45. That's true only for voters under 30, according to the Economist article usually cited.

The numbers are about equal for the 65+ group, and Sanders has more male than female supporters between the ages of 30 and 64, which would be the vast majority of them.

https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/candidate/bernie-sanders/

And women can also be misogynistic and can tend to view men as better leaders. Especially if they're impressionable and view a candidate as a father or grandfather figure.

[KPN]

46. Oh, so the fact that Biden has 900,000 more votes than Sanders doesan't count, nor do all the

votes that Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Yang and Steyer collected I guess. My, you do have a hard view of those t your left.

[highplainsdem]

47. I'm just saying that IF sexism/misogyny was a factor in Warren not doing better than Sanders, it

has to be a problem in the left lane of the party where they were competing. Why is that so hard to understand?

[KPN]

59. It's not. I just happen to disagree. I think it's likely more of a problem in the rest of the

party. I'm not saying that it didn't play a role or that it doesn't exist within the Bernie supporter cohort. Whereas your comment struck me as sort of saying it's a problem in the left lane but not elsewhere in the party. Facts say otherwise.

[highplainsdem]

60. I don't think it's a major factor, either. But I definitely don't think it's more of a factor in

the rest of the party.

Especially since we nominated a woman, a moderate or center-left Democrat, last time.

[TwilightZone]

62. The rest of the party nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Recent history makes your assertion look a little weak.

[KPN]

74. No it doesn't. Support for Sanders does not

equate with misogyny. That was the assertion.

[TwilightZone]

26. I think it's a factor...

and, yes, I'd agree that it doesn't say anything good for many in that constituency.

Snake emojis and calling her a sellout (among other things, including sexist slurs) because she called out their favorite isn't generally positive.

[leftieNanner]

8. Because Fox Noise and Vladimir Puting like her

I don't dislike her because she's a woman, I dislike her positions and attitude.

I think your question is rhetorical, but we shouldn't like someone just because she's a woman - nor should we dismiss someone because she's a woman.

Elizabeth Warren is still my first choice. Her interview with Rachel last night broke my heart.

[TwilightZone]

9. I don't really see the situations as comparable.

Warren's supporters weren't supporting her just because she's a woman. They were supporting her because they felt that she was the best candidate. I think it's pretty difficult to argue that sexism isn't inherent in the process to some degree, particularly in the media. Warren and Sanders were both for M4A, but Warren clearly got more criticism for that stance than Sanders. Some of that is because she provided details he's been hesitant to offer, but I'm not sure that's the only factor.

I don't see Gabbard as comparable. She was never seriously running and few have taken her campaign seriously. I can't imagine too many people - particularly Warren supporters - would hop on the Tulsi bandwagon just because she's a woman.

[KPN]

27. Say what? More criticism than Sanders?

[nycbos]

11. One is an agent of Russia and the other isn't

[Maven]

13. Wow. Intellectually dishonest or just boneheaded?

Take your pick.

[beachbumbob]

14. politics of victimizatiom tires me out, the black guy didn't win becasue we are racist, women didn't

win because we are sexist.

How about the simple fact as adults with a brain we determined they we NOT electable in November?

How about that as reason enough?

[Squinch]

52. Heaven forfend that I should tire you further, but the only reason she

was NOT electable was because she is a woman.

I always knew she was the strongest candidate. I also always knew she'd never win. Because I am not under any illusions about the amount of sexism she faced, both within the party and in the general electorate.

[StarfishSaver]

58. Poor you

Sorry you're so easily worn out.

Maybe you should go take a nap while those of us who actually have to deal with the realities of racism and sexism carry on the fight without the deadweight of people whitemansplaining to us about how our whining is inconveniencing you.

[radius777]

61. The job of president is viewed as a job for a white man,

that's the fundamental problem. We can debate all day about who was and wasn't a good candidate, but the hard fact is that all but one of our presidents have been white guys.

And It's not that Dem voters are necessarily racist/sexist but they know others will be in the General Election so are defaulting to the 'safe white guy' as the fear of Trump getting reelected is too distressing.

In the left lane they could've picked Warren but picked the old white guy Bernie.

In the moderate lane they could've picked PoC (Castro,Booker,Kamala) or a LGBT (Pete) or a woman (Amy, Kamala, Gillibrand) - but once again chose the old white guy Biden.

Neither Bernie nor Biden ran good campaigns, and in spite of this are the last ones standing.

[FreeState]

15. I don't think this is helpful

There is obvious sexism on multiple fronts. Was it the only reason? No, but it damn well played into it.

[groundloop]

18. What a dumb ass statement. Please quit trying to stir up a fight.

[zackymilly]

23. This dude's got money. Be nice to the rich. n/t

[brooklynite]

30. Indeed; and a fair chunk has gone to Warren's Senate campaigns...

[William769]

20. Major Fail.

[CincyDem]

21. So I guess if Nikki Haley decided to jump into the dem primaries

We can’t think sexism is part of warrens issue unless we support Haley?

Rubbish.

[2naSalit]

25. Because she isn't qualified to be president any more than -45...

at least not with her world view.

ETA: I'd vote for pizza rat first.

[stopbush]

28. Most Ds are women. Black women voted overwhelmingly for Biden on Tuesday.

Hillary won the popular vote in 2016.

Misogyny? Sexism? I don’t see it. Warren just didn’t connect with enough voters, especially women voters. Simple.

[nolabear]

31. BECAUSE WOMEN ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE!!!

Mother Mary...

[Squinch]

55. Some men will never understand that. And some of THEM are here.

[janterry]

73. thank you

This is spot on. And no more needs to be said.

[sheshe2]

81. Well said.

Thank you.

[womanofthehills]

32. Stupid thread

Warren is probably the smartest of all the candidates but we hear that low education white men will not vote for a woman. Period. I guess.

[Hoyt]

34. Don't doubt sexism/misogyny had something to do with it. Warren is a better version of Sanders, but

. . . . . .

In any event, it was sad to see her drop out. Similarly, it was sad to see Harris, Booker, Klobuchar, Castro, etc., drop out. These are good Democrats, even if one doesn't accept their policies, think they are best candidate for this election, etc.

[morillon]

36. I don't vote based on my ovaries

I'm not going to vote for a woman just because she's a woman. I disagree with the stuff Gabbard's done re: Syria and some of her votes in Congress. Major side-eye for her Russian stuff and her attacks on HRC. I wouldn't vote for any candidate with that track record.

Just because substantial misogyny contributed to Warren's difficulty in gaining traction doesn't mean I'm automatically going to vote for anyone else who's a woman. That just doesn't follow. Misogyny isn't present in every person's opposition to Warren, but it's there in enough cases for it to have been a factor. Just look at how she's talked about, the language that's used, and the way she was treated differently by the media, some of the public, and other candidates.

A person can be against Gabbard and still legitimately believe Warren was fucked over in part because she was a woman. The former doesn't invalidate the latter.

Not sure where you're going with this.

[patphil]

37. Well, it's probably because I don't like her position on the issues.

Nor am I thrilled with her public statements and actions.
Elizabeth Warren is 100 times better as a candidate than Tulsi Gabbard.
It's not about putting ANY woman in the White House, it's about putting a qualified woman who represents my views in the White House.
From my standpoint, Gabbard fails on both of those key points.
And from her polling numbers, most other Democrats feel the same.

So, with Elizabeth Warren out of the picture, I'm going with Joe.

Is that non-sexist enough for you?

[handmade34]

38. not misogyny this time...

the house is on fire and the country wants the fire extinguisher that has been sitting in the corner faithfully waiting to be used

this is not the year to yell sexism (although there is plenty of that)

[Moderateguy]

40. I am supporting Gabbard on DU

I did not vote for her for obvious reasons

[dsc]

41. It can simultaniously be true that Warren was a victim of sexism and Gabbard is a bad candidate

I do think she and Bernie were treated rather differently in regards to plans and pay fors.

[Act_of_Reparation]

44. I'm sorry, I wasn't listening.

You were mansplaining something to us?

[sheshe2]

83. Ouch.

[totodeinhere]

48. I don't think that she lost just because of that. But anyone who thinks that sexism and misogyny are

not a continuing problem in our society has blinders on.

[MrsCoffee]

50. Because we have brains? You should be ashamed of this post.

I'm sure you won't be, but you should be.

[Politicub]

51. Just wow - I can't believe I'm reading this on DU.

It reduces women to a single trait. Is this an attempt at satire?

In our patriarchal society, all women battle against sexism and misogyny in all spheres of their life. Microagressions are real. Electing women to office matters in that it's a direct action against the patriarchy. However, that does not mean that all women have the same experience to bring to a job.

Gabbard, like all other women, is a fully-formed person with her own experience and views. She is more than two X chromosomes. I happen to disagree with her views and positions. That's why I don't support her.

I'm flabbergasted, honestly.

[Squinch]

54. I'm, sadly, not surprised at all.

[LizBeth]

53. Wow. This post says a whole lot about you. Thanks for schooling me, man.

[brooklynite]

63. It says I don't fall back on easy stereotypes...

In 2016 we nominated a woman, and she got the most votes in the GE. Why do I have to assume that it's because she's a woman that we didn't all decide to vote for her?

[Act_of_Reparation]

64. Yes, you obviously have it all figured out.

No one understands institutional sexism like a wealthy white man.

[LizBeth]

68. And your inability to recognize the dozens of hurtles put in front of her to attain the 3 million

extra votes. How easily you dismiss the consideration of sexism and patriarchy and misogyny that HRC endured getting that mere 3 million vote win. Bully for you. Once again it shows you how a woman has to be times 2 better than any man to make it in the word. But meh.... Where is the deal in that, right?

[brooklynite]

69. I was referring to Warren.

Warren lasted far longer than the rest of the field (mostly male).

[LizBeth]

70. You brought up HRC

[brooklynite]

71. As an example of Democrats (and voters in general) voting for a female candidate

[Recursion]

57. A hypothetical Ranvir Gabbard would probably be polling much higher than 0.01% (nt)

[pecosbob]

72. Uhmmm...at the risk of this post being hidden, because she is clearly insane?

[Efilroft Sul]

75. Gabbard doesn't take her campaign seriously, so why should we?

[LaurenOlimina]

76. Spoken like a Hickenlooper man.

If you don't think sexism mattered, why do you care?

[RandySF]

78. I started with Kamala.

[alarimer]

82. Because Gabbard is a weirdo

Honestly, not even in the same category as any of the others. I know your question wasn't actually in good faith, though.

[Lulu KC]

84. Warren was qualified and capable

and STILL lost. That's sexism.

[BlueTsunami2018]

85. I don't think there's any doubt she wasn't considered viable because of it.

Quite frankly, I saw Elizabeth Warren as the best and smartest candidate but knew she wouldn’t win because of superficial nonsense that never applies to male candidates.

[Under The Radar]

86. I have many reasons for not supporting Liz

None of those reasons are sexist.
There is much more needed in this climate than diversity. There is so much more to this choice than race, Sex, sexual orientation and /or religion.
I supported Liz for Senate before she announced for Senate. A great choice for the consumer protection bureau before that. And I supported Hilary Clinton financially too.
At this moment in History we need someone that garners the broad support of all of the democrats independents and never Trumpers.
We have to have the person that we all can stand behind. Not just some of us, all of us.

[LanternWaste]

87. Affirming the consequent. It's a logical fallacy. On which you predicate your entire sentiment.

Is it because you're unaware of logic, or simply because you want to needle feminists for not thinking the way you do?

I'm guessing it's the latter, but that's just my opinion.