Great piece, Stephen! I think you are right. America is ready for a woman president. I don’t think Harris lost because she was a woman of color. I think that’s a cop out. (No pun intended given Harris’ background) I also think she was set up for failure and I don’t blame her at all for losing. She did the best she could with what little she was given to work with.
However, I do think the iceberg goes much deeper than all that. In my opinion the Dems need to plan better, strategize better, and coordinate their media response better. They also need to figure out a trajectory for the party that honors the core values of the Left while also reaching out to swing voters.
Great points—it always bothers me when liberals say being a woman is a major handicap for a candidate because if Democrats really believe this then they should simply never nominate a woman, especially in a high stakes election (and when is the last time Democrats told you it was a low stakes election?). And somehow these Democrats don’t rejoice when Republicans nominate a woman for a major post with the assumption that now Republicans are handicapped (if any prominent liberal cheered when McCain picked Palin because “now thanks to voter sexism, Obama has this in the bag” I didn’t see it).
Of course, there is sexism among voters, and often in trying to mitigate it woman candidates often shoot themselves in the foot (like bragging about shooting your dog, or voting for the Iraq War, to show voters you’re “tough” despite being a woman). But a woman candidate can win if she’s a good politician, and doesn’t fall into those traps. You’re better off not even thinking about the sexism and just running a good campaign.
Harris I think handled that aspect well—if she had a flaw, it was over cautiousness and attempting to run as a traditional candidate against an unorthodox campaigner. But this is the same problem Biden had. And more than that, Biden and his party were just plain unpopular—whether this is fair isnt the point, but they just were—and any nominee was going to carry that baggage. But we should by no means assume a woman just by virtue of her sex has a major albatross on her back as a candidate, and we shouldn’t use that as a reason to not nominate her next time.
Yes, I've argued that HRC and Harris were perhaps too similar to some past male Dem nominees who all lost (Gore, Kerry, Dukakis). And in Gore/Kerry's case, Dems couldn't believe voters chose the buffoon over the clearly more qualified candidate.
I do think Haley would've mopped the floor with Biden, and I can't imagine many feminists cheering this victory.
Yep—and to that point I wonder if the liberals who think sexism is a debilitating handicap would have cheered Haley becoming the nominee because Biden would crush her? To the contrary, sexism is a thing that affects candidates but it is not the be all and end all. Blaming it for Harris’s defeat makes us miss the reasons she lost (both those attributable to her choices as a candidate and those she had no control over). This isn’t academic because we do want a better shot next time (assuming there is a next time).
I am one of the guilty ones who blamed the loss on being a Black woman. I can’t help it being a woman too and seeing all the women candidates for president NOT win. We do look for the closest reason we can find and constantly being told that women screw their way to the top is taken far too seriously. It really feels personal. Of course WE know that if more women screwed there way to advancement then there would be more women at the top. And since there are not I consider it evidence however flimsy it may be.
It should infuriate us—particularly in Harris’s case, because unlike 2016 Trump had a record and no one could say they didn’t know how he’d act as president—an obviously qualified candidate with no real scandals up against that foul thing, and he won every swing state and more votes nationwide. More than 4 in 10 women chose the rapist over a woman. It’s depressing and maddening!
But I fear assuming sexism doomed her could teach us the wrong lesson (never nominate a woman, a man could have beaten Trump) and also a mistaken one. Gross as he is, Trump has advantages as a candidate (as an entertainer, he communicates in ways that draw media coverage, he floods the zone) that after ten years Democrats still haven’t figured out how to deal with. Harris—like most Democrats—still campaigns with methods that worked in pre-Trump days but no longer (boring serious speeches, poll tested soundbites, safe choices that seem done by committee rather than from the heart). She also didn’t draw distance with an unpopular president (hard to do when you’re his VP and his party’s nominee, but she didn’t even try), and in hindsight Biden staying so late in the race may or may not have deprived Harris of a chance to establish herself.
An incumbent VP for an unpopular administration was never going to successfully position herself as a change candidate. When 70 percent of voters think the country is headed in the wrong direction, the incumbent party is screwed.
Possibly a Dem governor could have run as an outsider and put some plausible distance between themselves and the administration but as I said, I think there’s a reason no one tried. The die was cast
Yep—even an “outsider” Dem would have a hard time as the nominee. McCain in 2008 was still burdened by Bush’s low approval ratings even though McCain wasn’t in his administration and had long been a rival and critic of Bush (to such an extent a lot of serious pundits speculated that Kerry would pick him as VP against Bush in 2004). Harder still to be VP. Harris’s only chance would have been if Biden was far more popular and that just wasn’t going to happen.
This is a thoughtful and sharp piece, and I agree there are major structural and strategic dynamics in 2024 that can't be explained away by social bias alone. That said, I’d also urge caution against downplaying the explicit bigotry that was central to the Trump campaign’s messaging—especially in how it framed Harris. Voters responding viscerally to racial and gender identity are doing so not just out of vague social antipathy, but from exposure to targeted, identity-based panic that’s been a mainstay of the American right for decades. And when people highlight that lived experience, it’s not about erasing structural complexity—it’s about acknowledging the specific ways identity is used as a political cudgel in U.S. media and electoral strategy.
I appreciate that you’re pulling back for a wider lens, and I think your instincts are sincere. But sometimes the social and structural forces aren’t in conflict—they’re aligned. And that includes how the Biden administration both cynically deployed Harris and left her holding the bag. We can analyze those dynamics without treating identity as either irrelevant or overly deterministic. It’s part of the machine.
That's very true. I think a major difference from 2016 is that Republicans had been running against Hillary Clinton the whole time (arguably since 2013). Harris -- perhaps by design -- wound up the front person for a doomed campaign.
Of course, Republicans would argue that the Trump campaign painting Harris as a word-salad spouting lightweight is no more sexist than Democrats doing the same to Sarah Palin. (We'd obviously disagree!) The "DEI pick" accusations were gross but also a case of exploiting statements Biden had made (for his own self-interest) that didn't do Harris any favors.
It wasn't only Trump and the Republicans running against Clinton; it was major media newspapers trumpeting both her emails and her lack of enthusiasm. And part of the reason the media did this - how much we'll never know - is Clinton is a woman (and a Clinton).
Well said. And yes, the Democrats share deep responsibility for how they mishandled this campaign, outsourcing strategic decisions to consultants still living in the “Disneymania” era and offering only tepid support for what Kamala Harris actually represented in a time of violent backlash. This is precisely why the postmortem is so volatile: the party is in danger of losing a coalition that includes its most loyal voters and organizers, all while chasing the rotting bones of a political center that no longer exists.
What makes this moment so painful is that the flip side of GOP extremism is the Democratic Party’s failure to confront it head-on, symptomatic of a broader degeneration of Beltway thinking. We’re watching the final stages of a generation of revolving-door neoliberals, whose political playbooks are rooted in transactionalism and talking points, not moral clarity or movement-building.
That’s why I remain especially sensitive to any attempt, intentional or not, to downplay the scale of cruelty and saturated bigotry that many Americans, especially marginalized ones, have had to absorb for years. The “wait it out” and “it won’t last” attitude has always been a form of erasure, not strategy.
Thanks for continuing to shoot straight and engage honestly. This kind of commentary is vital—not just for clarity, but for accountability.
If there was an anti-incumbent trend worldwide (ironically, one that Trump's grossness actually prevented in Canada), that actually reinforces a major reason why Biden should *not* have run for re-election. A new nominee might still be a Democrat but could more effectively distance themselves from that anti-incumbent trend (again, like what Trudeau did) and more importantly, a new nominee wouldn't have Biden's other major liability that he could never change (his age).
Kamala Harris lost her bid for the presidency in 2024 because Elon Musk helped Trump cheat. They’ve both admitted as much, out loud, with their mouths. The Democratic party, afraid of appearing all “Stop the Steal”-ish, sat on their hands and said nothing. That appears to be the continuing modus operandi for most Democrats. It’s pathetic.
I wouldn’t put it past those people—the one conspiracy theory I subscribe to is that the “assassination attempt” was faked, but I’m curious how they’d pull off the election steal. Did they hack into voting machines in the swing states? Has anyone at the state level investigated that?
Great analysis. It's easy to focus on a single factor like "voters are bigots!" and extremely hard to look in the mirror and accept uncomfortable realities, or worse, what average voters perceive as being real.
I always said we were on borrowed time when Biden won in 2020, not only because he looked old and frail, but also because he was not the president we needed to put an end to the events of Jan 6, which continue 'til this day. This was not the time to follow "norms and traditions" or "restore sanity," or whatever the fuck milquetoast Democrats called it; it was the time for bold, decisive action, optics be damned. That never came under the abject failure that was the DOJ under Garland. The failure to hold Trump accountable cannot be overstated.
Regarding the economy, it was never going to matter how good of a job Biden did, because perception is a motherfucker holding the stupidest voters in the country hostage. And that perception, so effectively manufactured by Republicans and media allies (most MSM, not just Fox News) is that the economy was in shambles and we were headed for an economic recession. It didn't matter the real reason behind the post-COVID rising grocery prices, which predated Biden, it was all Joe's fault (the media dropped the the "egg carton" narrative overnight).
Same can be said for the manufactured "border crisis," which gave Republicans enormous leverage against Democrats and "Border Czar"(also made up) Harris.
We need to accept the fact Republicans are better at connecting with average voters, because they play to people's deepest prejudices. They successfully painted Democrats as economic failures who love open borders, want to prosecute political opponents, and are only concerned "woke stuff" (see how fucking maddening all this bullshit is?!).
There are other factors that contributed to the loss, of course, like Democrats failing to drive their base to the polls for a variety of reasons (*cough* Gaza *cough*)
TL;DR: Like Stephen said, the political climate was horrendous for any Democrat, not just Harris, but I still believe Biden dropping out was the right decision.
From what I've read, many congressional Democrats (esp. in swing districts) rolled their eyes at "Bidenomics" and thought it was out of touch. Obama did a much better job acknowledging that the economy wasn't yet perfect but was moving forward in a good direction.
It's a cool analysis. I will cop to being someone who argues that Americans are fundamentally misogynistic and racist (especially given the frames Kamala Harris had to run under). In the end though I did see a big bias where she had to be perfect for so many people whereas the pricktator just...really needs excuses. Still I am amazed at the great race she ran despite so many people sliming her. And I foolishly felt buoyed and had hope for the future. It was very stupid of me, of course.
Indeed that is true of every Democrat and that's why Democrats were willing to throw away all the advancements of the Biden/Harris Administration as well as the proposals Kamala Harris had. So I know going forward that Democrats (and Americans) don't care about policy or any sort of tangible thing. They want grand, futile spectacle of talking tough against Republicans who get to wild out because they serve the unreconstructed. And there's of course lots of clout to be had by ignoring the unequal standards in both Murc's and McCain's Laws.
Don’t feel foolish. My circle of friends felt the same way all just dying to see the better place that she was hoping to make and so desperately needed. I refuse to not dream of something better (such as you, Seth) and feel like we are ready for different fresher faces that represent people that are so woefully underrepresented. Another reason why I voted twice for Obama. That and the fact that he’s pretty fucking brilliant to me.
I hear ya and am grateful for you. Some days I admit I vacillate between being "black pilled" and awaiting my eventual death, because there really wouldn't have been any clout in listening to me about any of this stuff. But then I see the good work people are attempting to do despite overwhelming odds and...well, it's *something.*
Yeah I hope the best for Biden and his family... but he royally screwed us. After open air detentions of families at the US - Mexico border where ICE said they 'were't detaining anyone so we don't have to give them food, water, medical care or sanitary facilities,' hand in hand with a press corp that for some reason didn't report on this, also the guy who simply moved family separation from said border to Panama- just because he knew we were too fucking stupid to see it was (and continues!) to happen, I was fucking sick day to day with Biden's policies. None of that is something I support, and it stank of someone desperate to cling to power. Yeah he had some tragedies in his life, and I feel for the man. But the politician? Well, power corrupts, and he was guzzling that juice for DECADES. It turns out he prefered power to his so-called principles.
I'm personally more than ready for a woman president. She could hardly do worse that the male procession of crooks, cranks, and incompetents that we have all had to endure. But then I'm also the guy who was confident that there would be no way in hell that the voters in America would be stupid enough to re-elect the idiot who told them to drink bleach, get their medicine from the horse doctor, and stick a light up their asses to cure Covid and who coincidentally killed a million extra people. So maybe I'm not the best judge of the national mood.
Thanks for writing this. Been reflecting on how we give way too much credit (or blame) to individual candidates for larger things beyond their control.
The way that Joe Biden has benefitted from the spectre of sexism in his career, really since 2008, is so triggering.
Good analysis, Stephen. In spite of jumping in the race late, in spite of being a Black woman, and in spite of being the VP of a very unpopular president, she came very close to winning. Yes, close doesn't count in political races, but the emphasis should be on just how weak TACO's win was. Instead, we are told that he has a mandate and won in a landslide, and that America isn't ready for a woman president, especially a woman of color. Poppycock!
Harris falling short had more to do with listening to the paid political consultants and the focus groups than in listening to the Democratic base, and to the squishy political middle. Her campaign was making real progress, then seemed to stall. She started out listening to the voters, then switched to the paid political consultants. And national Dems still listen to the paid political consultants instead of the voters. Meanwhile, local Dems are winning by listening to the voters.
ETA: Biden was very unpopular, even before the debate, as you noted. I like to be realistic, even if I don't understand why something is true. Biden was unpopular, and I don't understand why.
Great piece, Stephen! I think you are right. America is ready for a woman president. I don’t think Harris lost because she was a woman of color. I think that’s a cop out. (No pun intended given Harris’ background) I also think she was set up for failure and I don’t blame her at all for losing. She did the best she could with what little she was given to work with.
However, I do think the iceberg goes much deeper than all that. In my opinion the Dems need to plan better, strategize better, and coordinate their media response better. They also need to figure out a trajectory for the party that honors the core values of the Left while also reaching out to swing voters.
Great points—it always bothers me when liberals say being a woman is a major handicap for a candidate because if Democrats really believe this then they should simply never nominate a woman, especially in a high stakes election (and when is the last time Democrats told you it was a low stakes election?). And somehow these Democrats don’t rejoice when Republicans nominate a woman for a major post with the assumption that now Republicans are handicapped (if any prominent liberal cheered when McCain picked Palin because “now thanks to voter sexism, Obama has this in the bag” I didn’t see it).
Of course, there is sexism among voters, and often in trying to mitigate it woman candidates often shoot themselves in the foot (like bragging about shooting your dog, or voting for the Iraq War, to show voters you’re “tough” despite being a woman). But a woman candidate can win if she’s a good politician, and doesn’t fall into those traps. You’re better off not even thinking about the sexism and just running a good campaign.
Harris I think handled that aspect well—if she had a flaw, it was over cautiousness and attempting to run as a traditional candidate against an unorthodox campaigner. But this is the same problem Biden had. And more than that, Biden and his party were just plain unpopular—whether this is fair isnt the point, but they just were—and any nominee was going to carry that baggage. But we should by no means assume a woman just by virtue of her sex has a major albatross on her back as a candidate, and we shouldn’t use that as a reason to not nominate her next time.
Yes, I've argued that HRC and Harris were perhaps too similar to some past male Dem nominees who all lost (Gore, Kerry, Dukakis). And in Gore/Kerry's case, Dems couldn't believe voters chose the buffoon over the clearly more qualified candidate.
I do think Haley would've mopped the floor with Biden, and I can't imagine many feminists cheering this victory.
Yep—and to that point I wonder if the liberals who think sexism is a debilitating handicap would have cheered Haley becoming the nominee because Biden would crush her? To the contrary, sexism is a thing that affects candidates but it is not the be all and end all. Blaming it for Harris’s defeat makes us miss the reasons she lost (both those attributable to her choices as a candidate and those she had no control over). This isn’t academic because we do want a better shot next time (assuming there is a next time).
I am one of the guilty ones who blamed the loss on being a Black woman. I can’t help it being a woman too and seeing all the women candidates for president NOT win. We do look for the closest reason we can find and constantly being told that women screw their way to the top is taken far too seriously. It really feels personal. Of course WE know that if more women screwed there way to advancement then there would be more women at the top. And since there are not I consider it evidence however flimsy it may be.
It should infuriate us—particularly in Harris’s case, because unlike 2016 Trump had a record and no one could say they didn’t know how he’d act as president—an obviously qualified candidate with no real scandals up against that foul thing, and he won every swing state and more votes nationwide. More than 4 in 10 women chose the rapist over a woman. It’s depressing and maddening!
But I fear assuming sexism doomed her could teach us the wrong lesson (never nominate a woman, a man could have beaten Trump) and also a mistaken one. Gross as he is, Trump has advantages as a candidate (as an entertainer, he communicates in ways that draw media coverage, he floods the zone) that after ten years Democrats still haven’t figured out how to deal with. Harris—like most Democrats—still campaigns with methods that worked in pre-Trump days but no longer (boring serious speeches, poll tested soundbites, safe choices that seem done by committee rather than from the heart). She also didn’t draw distance with an unpopular president (hard to do when you’re his VP and his party’s nominee, but she didn’t even try), and in hindsight Biden staying so late in the race may or may not have deprived Harris of a chance to establish herself.
An incumbent VP for an unpopular administration was never going to successfully position herself as a change candidate. When 70 percent of voters think the country is headed in the wrong direction, the incumbent party is screwed.
Possibly a Dem governor could have run as an outsider and put some plausible distance between themselves and the administration but as I said, I think there’s a reason no one tried. The die was cast
Yep—even an “outsider” Dem would have a hard time as the nominee. McCain in 2008 was still burdened by Bush’s low approval ratings even though McCain wasn’t in his administration and had long been a rival and critic of Bush (to such an extent a lot of serious pundits speculated that Kerry would pick him as VP against Bush in 2004). Harder still to be VP. Harris’s only chance would have been if Biden was far more popular and that just wasn’t going to happen.
But is America ready for a QUALIFIED president?
Gender is irrelevant.
This is a thoughtful and sharp piece, and I agree there are major structural and strategic dynamics in 2024 that can't be explained away by social bias alone. That said, I’d also urge caution against downplaying the explicit bigotry that was central to the Trump campaign’s messaging—especially in how it framed Harris. Voters responding viscerally to racial and gender identity are doing so not just out of vague social antipathy, but from exposure to targeted, identity-based panic that’s been a mainstay of the American right for decades. And when people highlight that lived experience, it’s not about erasing structural complexity—it’s about acknowledging the specific ways identity is used as a political cudgel in U.S. media and electoral strategy.
I appreciate that you’re pulling back for a wider lens, and I think your instincts are sincere. But sometimes the social and structural forces aren’t in conflict—they’re aligned. And that includes how the Biden administration both cynically deployed Harris and left her holding the bag. We can analyze those dynamics without treating identity as either irrelevant or overly deterministic. It’s part of the machine.
That's very true. I think a major difference from 2016 is that Republicans had been running against Hillary Clinton the whole time (arguably since 2013). Harris -- perhaps by design -- wound up the front person for a doomed campaign.
Of course, Republicans would argue that the Trump campaign painting Harris as a word-salad spouting lightweight is no more sexist than Democrats doing the same to Sarah Palin. (We'd obviously disagree!) The "DEI pick" accusations were gross but also a case of exploiting statements Biden had made (for his own self-interest) that didn't do Harris any favors.
It wasn't only Trump and the Republicans running against Clinton; it was major media newspapers trumpeting both her emails and her lack of enthusiasm. And part of the reason the media did this - how much we'll never know - is Clinton is a woman (and a Clinton).
Well said. And yes, the Democrats share deep responsibility for how they mishandled this campaign, outsourcing strategic decisions to consultants still living in the “Disneymania” era and offering only tepid support for what Kamala Harris actually represented in a time of violent backlash. This is precisely why the postmortem is so volatile: the party is in danger of losing a coalition that includes its most loyal voters and organizers, all while chasing the rotting bones of a political center that no longer exists.
What makes this moment so painful is that the flip side of GOP extremism is the Democratic Party’s failure to confront it head-on, symptomatic of a broader degeneration of Beltway thinking. We’re watching the final stages of a generation of revolving-door neoliberals, whose political playbooks are rooted in transactionalism and talking points, not moral clarity or movement-building.
That’s why I remain especially sensitive to any attempt, intentional or not, to downplay the scale of cruelty and saturated bigotry that many Americans, especially marginalized ones, have had to absorb for years. The “wait it out” and “it won’t last” attitude has always been a form of erasure, not strategy.
Thanks for continuing to shoot straight and engage honestly. This kind of commentary is vital—not just for clarity, but for accountability.
The anti-incumbent trend was worldwide; did Biden cause THAT as well? (apparently the Republicans think he did cause the inflation worldwide as well.
I’d say that Harris coming as close as she did to winning (considering how other incumbents around the world did) says a lot about how weak Trump was.
Bruce, excellent point about the anti-incumbent trend.
If there was an anti-incumbent trend worldwide (ironically, one that Trump's grossness actually prevented in Canada), that actually reinforces a major reason why Biden should *not* have run for re-election. A new nominee might still be a Democrat but could more effectively distance themselves from that anti-incumbent trend (again, like what Trudeau did) and more importantly, a new nominee wouldn't have Biden's other major liability that he could never change (his age).
Kamala Harris lost her bid for the presidency in 2024 because Elon Musk helped Trump cheat. They’ve both admitted as much, out loud, with their mouths. The Democratic party, afraid of appearing all “Stop the Steal”-ish, sat on their hands and said nothing. That appears to be the continuing modus operandi for most Democrats. It’s pathetic.
Don't know if it's true but I saw something about a challenge in Rockland county in NY to the presidential and senatorial elections.
I wouldn’t put it past those people—the one conspiracy theory I subscribe to is that the “assassination attempt” was faked, but I’m curious how they’d pull off the election steal. Did they hack into voting machines in the swing states? Has anyone at the state level investigated that?
Great analysis. It's easy to focus on a single factor like "voters are bigots!" and extremely hard to look in the mirror and accept uncomfortable realities, or worse, what average voters perceive as being real.
I always said we were on borrowed time when Biden won in 2020, not only because he looked old and frail, but also because he was not the president we needed to put an end to the events of Jan 6, which continue 'til this day. This was not the time to follow "norms and traditions" or "restore sanity," or whatever the fuck milquetoast Democrats called it; it was the time for bold, decisive action, optics be damned. That never came under the abject failure that was the DOJ under Garland. The failure to hold Trump accountable cannot be overstated.
Regarding the economy, it was never going to matter how good of a job Biden did, because perception is a motherfucker holding the stupidest voters in the country hostage. And that perception, so effectively manufactured by Republicans and media allies (most MSM, not just Fox News) is that the economy was in shambles and we were headed for an economic recession. It didn't matter the real reason behind the post-COVID rising grocery prices, which predated Biden, it was all Joe's fault (the media dropped the the "egg carton" narrative overnight).
Same can be said for the manufactured "border crisis," which gave Republicans enormous leverage against Democrats and "Border Czar"(also made up) Harris.
We need to accept the fact Republicans are better at connecting with average voters, because they play to people's deepest prejudices. They successfully painted Democrats as economic failures who love open borders, want to prosecute political opponents, and are only concerned "woke stuff" (see how fucking maddening all this bullshit is?!).
There are other factors that contributed to the loss, of course, like Democrats failing to drive their base to the polls for a variety of reasons (*cough* Gaza *cough*)
TL;DR: Like Stephen said, the political climate was horrendous for any Democrat, not just Harris, but I still believe Biden dropping out was the right decision.
From what I've read, many congressional Democrats (esp. in swing districts) rolled their eyes at "Bidenomics" and thought it was out of touch. Obama did a much better job acknowledging that the economy wasn't yet perfect but was moving forward in a good direction.
Is 2002 a typo? Biden won in 2020.
Sorry, fat fingers and small mobile screen!
I have skinny fingers and make lots of typos. Sigh.
It's a cool analysis. I will cop to being someone who argues that Americans are fundamentally misogynistic and racist (especially given the frames Kamala Harris had to run under). In the end though I did see a big bias where she had to be perfect for so many people whereas the pricktator just...really needs excuses. Still I am amazed at the great race she ran despite so many people sliming her. And I foolishly felt buoyed and had hope for the future. It was very stupid of me, of course.
Indeed that is true of every Democrat and that's why Democrats were willing to throw away all the advancements of the Biden/Harris Administration as well as the proposals Kamala Harris had. So I know going forward that Democrats (and Americans) don't care about policy or any sort of tangible thing. They want grand, futile spectacle of talking tough against Republicans who get to wild out because they serve the unreconstructed. And there's of course lots of clout to be had by ignoring the unequal standards in both Murc's and McCain's Laws.
Don’t feel foolish. My circle of friends felt the same way all just dying to see the better place that she was hoping to make and so desperately needed. I refuse to not dream of something better (such as you, Seth) and feel like we are ready for different fresher faces that represent people that are so woefully underrepresented. Another reason why I voted twice for Obama. That and the fact that he’s pretty fucking brilliant to me.
I hear ya and am grateful for you. Some days I admit I vacillate between being "black pilled" and awaiting my eventual death, because there really wouldn't have been any clout in listening to me about any of this stuff. But then I see the good work people are attempting to do despite overwhelming odds and...well, it's *something.*
Yeah I hope the best for Biden and his family... but he royally screwed us. After open air detentions of families at the US - Mexico border where ICE said they 'were't detaining anyone so we don't have to give them food, water, medical care or sanitary facilities,' hand in hand with a press corp that for some reason didn't report on this, also the guy who simply moved family separation from said border to Panama- just because he knew we were too fucking stupid to see it was (and continues!) to happen, I was fucking sick day to day with Biden's policies. None of that is something I support, and it stank of someone desperate to cling to power. Yeah he had some tragedies in his life, and I feel for the man. But the politician? Well, power corrupts, and he was guzzling that juice for DECADES. It turns out he prefered power to his so-called principles.
He screwed us in many ways. Appointing Garland would be another glaring example.
Yup.
I'm personally more than ready for a woman president. She could hardly do worse that the male procession of crooks, cranks, and incompetents that we have all had to endure. But then I'm also the guy who was confident that there would be no way in hell that the voters in America would be stupid enough to re-elect the idiot who told them to drink bleach, get their medicine from the horse doctor, and stick a light up their asses to cure Covid and who coincidentally killed a million extra people. So maybe I'm not the best judge of the national mood.
The first woman president will be a Republican.
Always thought that.
I agree Suzie. And it won't be a moderate like Murkowski.
Not a chance. If Haley had somehow beaten Trump, she'd be President even if she ran against a younger Biden.
No it will be the rightest of right. She’ll sweep the primaries and the Never-Hers will magically fall in line, party over country.
Thanks for writing this. Been reflecting on how we give way too much credit (or blame) to individual candidates for larger things beyond their control.
The way that Joe Biden has benefitted from the spectre of sexism in his career, really since 2008, is so triggering.
You could even go back as far as 1991 and Joe Biden’s role in the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings.
Good analysis, Stephen. In spite of jumping in the race late, in spite of being a Black woman, and in spite of being the VP of a very unpopular president, she came very close to winning. Yes, close doesn't count in political races, but the emphasis should be on just how weak TACO's win was. Instead, we are told that he has a mandate and won in a landslide, and that America isn't ready for a woman president, especially a woman of color. Poppycock!
Harris falling short had more to do with listening to the paid political consultants and the focus groups than in listening to the Democratic base, and to the squishy political middle. Her campaign was making real progress, then seemed to stall. She started out listening to the voters, then switched to the paid political consultants. And national Dems still listen to the paid political consultants instead of the voters. Meanwhile, local Dems are winning by listening to the voters.
ETA: Biden was very unpopular, even before the debate, as you noted. I like to be realistic, even if I don't understand why something is true. Biden was unpopular, and I don't understand why.