It’s because she’s a woman.
-
It’s because she’s a woman.
I don’t want to hear any other excuses or analysis around “the campaign could have done this or that”.
It turns out the majority of the American people would rather vote for any man over a woman. 2016 was not a fluke.
Deep, deep misogyny. A whole new level of disturbing.
-
Laxystem (Masto/Glitch)replied to Eric Leamen last edited by [email protected]
@ericleamen I'm still gonna analyse.
Because Trump getting a 50% is still up to more than "she's a woman". The 2020 elections still had Trump at 50%. Harris lost, say, 10% because she's a woman, then got only 9% for being the only viable candidate.
There's still place to analyse why, tf, did the democrats not achieve 50% although Harris is a woman; that is, why did she not get at least, say, 65% not considering mysogyny? Again, as the only widely-known viable candidate?
Democrats losing is because she's a woman, yes, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. But what about everything else?
Like, I'd completely agree with you, if it wasn't Trump that she was against.
