• mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    I don’t why people are bent over the woman president prediction not happening. It has almost nothing to do with it being a female candidate, and way more to do with actually having a quality candidate, hence why it’s still a 66% “Will have happened”.

    Obama actually wasn’t the DNC favorite, but he had a popular campaign which is why he succeeded.

    Hillary and Kamala’s campaign can be summed up as a flaming pile of garbage that wouldn’t have made any difference in polls had they been males.

    • WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      The Clintons are very flawed, but Hillary Clinton was the most qualified candidate you had since probably Eisenhower. It was wild to sit here and watch 2008 and 2016 US liberals repeat mid-90s GOP bullshit Hillary lines verbatim.

    • 6stringringer@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Honest aaaand accurate. The integrity of the campaign becomes bigger than the candidate themselves. By integrity I mean money and establishment politics despite who many really really want for a candidate.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It has almost nothing to do with it being a female candidate

      I mean, to you maybe. But to suggest that there aren’t people in the US who are unwilling to vote for a woman is kind of absurd

    • FosterMolasses@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      When you’re running against Hitler this argument quickly falls apart.

      Americans will vote in literally anything but a woman.