• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I do regret not being supportive of Hillary Clinton. I voted for her because of the alternative, but ………

    Looking back from our current chaos and dystopia, Clinton’s main problem was she wasn’t personable. The reality is she would have been effective, and would have served the country far better than what we got instead.

  • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Not sure if Americans think it will fix anything. Female Prime Ministers just turn out to be as bad as any male counterparts.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 days ago

    I agree. Not because I feel a woman can’t do the job, but because too many of my fellow Americans are sexist asshats.

    The thing is though, they are self-aware to know they can’t just say “a woman can’t do the job” out loud. So they say things like “she has a funny laugh” or “she doesn’t smile enough”. Or say they don’t like her policies, even though they can’t actually name any of her policies. So there will never be a statistic that proves it. Just call it a prediction based in my learned experience.

    I hope to live log enough to see AOC (or some other woman, there are several I think are qualified) become President. But I don’t think she can win if she ran right now. And only way she can be in a position to win in 2036 or 2040 is if we turn back the creeping fascism in 2026 and 2028.

    • spacegoat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I didn’t like her because she was a federal prosecutor.

      I did vote for her, but I think her unpopularity is oversimplified. I was not a fan.

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      You forgot the classic one, “she’ll be too emotional”, while voting in what we have now.

    • cattywampas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      What really sucks is that because Kamala Harris was not a good candidate, that whole situation probably did damage to the idea of a woman being president and set it back some.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 days ago

        I will argue with you there. She may not have been the best candidate, and might not have won the nomination if there was a primary in 2024, but if she had been elected she would have done the job competently.

        Sometimes, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          That is the problem, in hindsight, both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris would have been better for the country than what we ended up with instead.

          Are we all just sexist assholes?

          Given who the current president is, we’re in an era where image matters far more than qualifications. People say they voted for the current president for reasons of image, even when it flies in the face of reality. Similarly the current president was very effective at name calling, and so confidently spewing nonsense that people fell for it. Trump’s biggest skill was always bullshitting and Harris was one of his victims.

        • cattywampas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 days ago

          I agree that she would have been fine. And I certainly voted for her because she wasn’t Trump. But she did poorly in the primaries leading up to 2020, she did not distance herself enough from Biden, she isn’t the strongest speaker or communicator. I stand by saying that she wasn’t a good candidate and that’s why she lost to Trump where many other Democrats could have won.

          In her defense I don’t blame her for it. She was unfairly put into a shitty situation. I blame Biden and the DNC way more, but it is what it is.

          • dhork@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            Oh, I definitely blame Biden. He should have stuck to his one-term promise.

            We might differ on whether Harris was a “good” candidate, but I think we agree that we would have a better candidate (whether it turned out to be Harris or not) if that candidate was chosen as the result of a competitive primary.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Yeah I think the timing was critical. She started campaigning way too late.

              I do think Biden did a good job and got a lot of things moving in the right direction. I also think too many of the things he started were too long term: “continue the same policies” was the best answer. However we as a country no longer have the patience, we need instanteous gratuity that was just not there. It’s somewhat like the Jimmy Carter problem: it doesn’t matter how smart you are or whether you’re doing the right thing if you can’t get everyone excited.

              Harris started off strong but really didn’t get anyone excited and “more of the same” was not the way to do it (even if she were right).

              She needed time and distance to better establish her as a distinct candidate.

              I even see Biden’s logic of “can’t let Trump win and no other candidates stand out” but it was the wrong approach. In hindsight, yes, dropping out much earlier was clearly the better choice

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          Maybe not even competently. The bar is so low even a badly run admin by her would be better than what we have now. Simply because the narcissism and ability to act on it wouldn’t be there.

  • Widdershins@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    The current president has beaten two women to get where he is today. In other words, the current president has never beaten a man in a presidential election and, in fact, lost against the one man he ran against. I have a feeling this is emasculating in right-wing spaces.

    I am doubtful of that thought, or any thought, crossing his mind much anymore but I hope he is reminded of those facts by those close to him who believe it makes a difference. I hope that ridicule lives on in their unsafe spaces.

  • frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I once asked someone who votes liberal if we put only women up for SCOTUS until it was all 9 women, would they be OK with that? The answer was fuck, no! Then I pointed out how long it was only men, and look at what that got us. Women encroaching on traditionally men-only places is still wrong for many voters. Stupid, but that’s what we have going on.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yeah, no. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I strongly support future presidents focusing their search for qualified candidates toward better equity, but Quotas and mandates are just doing the wrong thing in the other direction

      This is the whole dei misunderstanding all over again. Expanding opportunities for under represented demographics is not the same as blindly hiring under represented demographics

    • MBech@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I think what people have an issue with, is that swinging in the complete opposite direction isn’t the answer. We should strive for equality for all, not for another bullshit genderwar. We need to lift the opportunities of every single person, not limit them as a dumb form of payback.