| Jaicee said: Yeah I have to agree that Warren's reliance on constantly reminding people that she's a female candidate has hurt her campaign. 34% of female voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary (as compared with 26% of their male counterparts) told pollsters that nominating a woman would increase Donald Trump's odds of re-election, while only 12% said that nominating a woman would instead increase the odds of a Democratic victory in the fall. Lessons have been learned from Hillary Clinton's defeat. Women in particular recognize that there is no advantage in nominating a woman. To that end, female candidates do better not to go about reminding voters that they're female because that's more often viewed as a strategic problem for them than as a political edge. It's tantamount to advertising a political liability. (Sort of like Trump campaigning on his recent impeachment, as though it were a good thing.) She's also made a serious error of judgment in pivoting more rightward in general since October. What she's learning the hard way now is that there is, in fact, no constituency for her imaginary third lane in-between progressive and neoliberal politics. |
I just think that her recent campaigning has hurt her too much. And I don't think it has to do with her letting everyone know that she's a woman. Rather, I believe her lack of attacking billionaires (like Bernie) and giving a slightly more moderate appearance has put her in a position that pleases neither side. Too left for the moderates, too moderate for the left. So we agree on that.
As for Petes little line, I think it's funny because it is that type of empty but vague type of inspirational-words-of the-day that's been part of democratic speeches since Obama. I think it shows how much Pete doesn't really have any real clear positions. His support is literally now just "Biden looks a mess, let's go for the younger moderate". How long can that last.
