My thinking continues to be dominated by the Trump transition and trying to learn the lessons of the election. This week’s featured post examines one of the lessons I hope Democrats don’t draw from the election: that we need to disassociate ourselves from unpopular victims of discrimination. “Should Democrats Abandon the Trans Community?” should be out before 10 EST.
In last week’s comments I took criticism for not picking out misogyny as the reason Harris lost. It’s true I’m resisting that conclusion, but not because I’m blind to misogyny. If we conclude that Harris lost because she’s a woman, then the obvious lesson to draw going forward is: Never nominate a woman again. I really don’t want to go there.
The weekly summary has three long notes that I could have hived off as separate posts:
- conclusions to draw from the failure of the Matt Gaetz nomination,
- a fascinating discussion David Roberts and Dan Savage had about Democrats claiming their identity as an urban party rather than running from it,
- preparing for all the disinformation we’re about to get from Elon Musk and his minions about the federal government.
In other news, there’s the ICC’s indictment of Netanyahu, Brazil’s indictment of Bolsonaro, the UK’s economic underperformance, and a few other things. Expect the weekly summary to post around noon.
The Weekly Sift 
Comments
I’m discouraged about the prospects of a Democratic woman being elected, especially since we have such a strong group of female governors and prospective governors (Abigail Spanberger, Mikie Sherrill).
There may too many people (men and women) who won’t vote for a Democratic woman for President. However, I don’t think the same is true for a Republican woman. I think Nikki Haley could get elected. Part of the reason is that Haley, in running, would implicitly and perhaps subtly indicate that she agrees to the male-dominant Republican world view. That could be enough to assuage those who wouldn’t vote for a Democratic woman.
Also, there are some on the left who would vote for a woman for President, regardless of politics, just so we can finally break that barrier.
Which would be as poor a reason to vote for a candidate as would refusing to vote for a woman. Haley’s policy preferences are odious when not downright authoritarian and enabling of theocracy. Willingly subjecting the country to that simply because she has a vagina is not progress.
I get it that you “don’t want to go there” about the impact of VP Harris’ gender on the election but you HAVE TO GO THERE because it is where all of us without a certain body part live EVERY SINGLE DAY. And oh by the way although we did elect a man who was not fully Caucasian, we failed to elect either of the women who ran against he-who-shall-not-be-named. And you really truly believe that gender was not a factor?????? Seriously? Ok, whatever. If you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem. Peace out.
It almost certainly was A factor. But I doubt it was THE factor: The way nobody listened to Harris make her case was too similar to the way nobody had been listening to Biden make his case. GDP up? Unemployment low? Manufacturing returning to America? NOBODY CARES.
I get the “NOBODY CARES” reaction, Doug, but Biden didn’t really make his own case. He was hidden throughout much of his presidency, and was, politely put, an ineffective communicator when put in public.
I believe people were open to Harris making her case, especially at the beginning. Coming off the heels of the Walz pick, excitement was at a fever pitch as there was a sense that we were finally getting a chance to break from Biden and the outdated “third-way” Democratic party he represented. After the DNC though, the case she made was uninspired. She couldn’t name anything she’d do different than Biden (who’s staff apparently was hiding data indicating a 400 point electoral college rout for Trump against Biden – did you see that?). Walz was muzzled, and she centered the Cheney family instead. She went with Mark Cuban as a surrogate rather than Bernie Sanders. The refusal to engage people online/via podcasts recalls Nixon not being TV ready against JFK. She ran to the right on immigration, guns, Medicare for All, while the liberal solutions on offer (assistance for first time homebuyers, the “opportunity economy”) came off as woefully inadequate to the economic hardship of most Americans.
There seems to be an unwillingness to accept how hard it is for working families out there. We are are Gilded Age levels of economic inequality. Harris essentially made a case for the continuation of a system that has brought about this inequality, and it was rejected.
“…the obvious lesson to draw going forward is: Never nominate a woman again” — Only if your sole focus is winning elections. If you hold a larger goal of building a better society, then it is important to recognize just how serious a problem misogyny is. Without accurately diagnosing the problem, we won’t come up with appropriate strategies to help fix it. Harris’s loss is a striking point of evidence that misogyny might still be a much bigger problem than many of us thought. You say you are “not blind” to misogyny, but I bet you are still underestimating it. Taking seriously the idea that misogyny fully explains Harris’s loss might be a good entry point for you to build a deeper and more powerful foundational understanding of gender politics.
Winning elections comes before all else.
The fact is, America is a large country where its political system of selecting its head of government overemphasizes the same cohort that has many people in it, including women, who believe it is men only who should hold ultimate positions of authority, regardless of resume. That’s the way it is, whether it should be that way or not.