I voted for Hillary in 2016; Biden in 2020; Trump in 2024. Kamala Harris seemed drunk half the time she spoke, and she was married to a creep (just like Hillary). I didn't see either of these women as admirable role models. The Harris/Walz campaign was as insulting to women as the entire Biden/Harris administration had been: Sam Brinton? Really? Dylan Mulvaney? Lia Thomas? Why would any self-respecting woman vote for an administration that promoted these fools? No, women do not have penises; no, mothers are not "inseminated persons"; no, males have NO right to compete against females in sports; no, abortion should not be legal after 15 weeks, except to protect the health of the mother. Also, the price of eggs and gas DO matter, even more than the cost of abortion (which at $700, has always been unaffordable for women in Red States - so we in Texas get abortifacients from Mexico and miscarry at home). We DO care about Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, Ruby Garcia, Alex Wise Jr., Lizbeth Medina, Rachel Morin, and TWO YEAR OLD Jeremy Poou-Caceres, all of whom were murdered by people that Biden's lax border policies allowed into our country.
Most women are NOT represented by what passes for "feminism" these days. So, no, we did not vote for the party that claims "men get pregnant, too". What a shock!
1. They don't recognize our value and have allowed men into our spaces. Birthing people?
2. They denigrate our husbands and sons and brothers and fathers. We all have at least one of those.
3. They keep men from working decent paying jobs which puts more of the responsibility on women.
4. We don't like identity politics. Period. Not sex, race, or sexual preference.
5. It is offensive to tell us we are scared of the males in our life and have to hide our vote. Would it surprise you to know I tell all the men in my family how to vote because they don't have time to keep up with politics?
What a remarkably poor reading of why women voted the way they did in the last election. If the Democrats continue this way the Republicans will be romping home for years to come. Are Democrats really this bad at introspection?
I think it's very revealing that the biggest female leaders in the Democrat party in recent years have all trafficked in anger and resentment: Michele Obama excelled at the sport; Hilary Clinton was, I am guessing, redirecting anger that should have been aimed at her misogynist husband at the electorate at large; and DEI poster child Kamala Harris just parroting lines she thought she should say, while adding idiotic new phrases she hoped might pass for profundity. The American people got tired of all the rage. And Oprah, Michele, "Lady" Gaga etc were tone deaf spokeswomen, only underscoring their uber 1 percent-ness in comparison to regular folks who really struggle to feed their families. Dems lost their edge when they went all in for transvestites doing storytime at the library and caring more about abortion than building the future with families.
Michelle "When they go low we go high" Obama excelled at anger and resentment? I guess I wasn't paying attention. All I saw was someone still cashing in on fame and adulation. In the 60s she'd have been the darling of the women's pages.
It's terribly misleading just to say "women favor abortion" as an issue. Poll after poll---the real ones, not the hoax polls funded by USAID---show that there is widespread support ONLY for 1st trimester abortion, widespread OPPOSITION to third trimester abortion (which is where the Democrats live) and about 50/50 for second trimester. In other words, at the point where the life of the mother is truly at risk, women are much more willing to be lenient on the issue. But Democrats cannot call a fetus a baby, are known for their bloody abortion "celebrations," and do nothing to rein in the lunatics. Moreover, highlighting a bunch of celebrities who rarely interact with their own kids, who use nannies, or, as with Taylor Swift, do not have kids, simply doesn't count as a "mother" issue.
I don't know how long it will take, but the day will come when even most women understand that we are depopulating ourselves to death; that fewer children are the death knell for any society---not just economically, but in terms of culture, innovation, creation and so on. And that day is coming.
Any advantages Harris may have had from her identity were nullified by her embarrassing inability to think on her feet or express a cogent thought. She was a terrible candidate, not chosen by the electorate but rather by clueless insiders who have a stranglehold on a once great party.
Hasn't that abortion train left the station? Now it must be legal up to 9 months, no parental notification, taxpayer funded, etc. It just seemed ghoulish that it was the Dems main focus and 'get out the vote' message. That and trans' rights, for men to have the right to play women's sports, to be in their jail cells and locker rooms.
"In the end, polls overestimated the vice president’s advantage ..."
Well, yes. But that's because the vast majority of voters could not, and to their credit will not, buy into the identity politics gambit of Democrats in general, and Harris' enthusiasts in particular.
By any measure of merit above identity, Harris was a miserable and embarrassing choice for President, arguably even more flawed than the conspicuously, cognitively impaired Joe Biden.
Abortion law was never going to change, regardless of who won. Neither party had 50 Senate votes, let alone 60, to enact a federal abortion law, either pro or con.
After inflation and immigration, crime probably hurt Dems the most. More than 1/2 of US women no longer feel comfortable walking around their neighborhoods at night. Crime hits mothers and single women hardest. Worrying a child, walking to school or playing outside, might encounter violence, is its' own special kind of hell. Crime infantilizes women. Do you know who cannot leave the house alone, at night? Children and single women dwelling in crime ridden neighborhoods.
Not long before the election a divorced, retired friend returned home to her swanky CA neighborhood. Cops were everywhere. Crimefree for 30 years, the development had its' first burglary. No one was harmed, but what the thieves did not steal, they broke.
A cop investigating, explained it was South American criminal gang, on tourist visas. They used children, as watchers. When someone left their home with luggage, a gang would descend on the property, quickly steal anything of value and smash the rest, to impede the investigation. They would stay 30 days, return to South America, and be back a month later.
Asked by residents, what to do, to avoid being victims, a cop deadpanned,"move to the MidWest, or buy a big, mean dog." The neighborhood, full of wealthy, liberal, divorced and widowed, retirees was aghast. For most, it was their first, personal brush with crime. My friend laughed that a few admitted to becoming Trump supporters, after that. More probably voted for him, but would not never admit it.
"Do you know who cannot leave the house alone, at night? Children and single women dwelling in crime ridden neighborhoods."
I get where you're coming from, but the women who live in those crime ridden neighborhoods overwhelmingly voted for Kamala Harris (and generally are the most reliable Democratic voting block). It's a mistake to confuse women who live in neighborhoods that have long been crime ridden with women who live in nicer neighborhoods that since 2020 have experienced an increase in crime. Alternatively, these women are not to be confused with upper class professional women who have since drastically reduced their use of public transit due to the post-Floydmania increase in scary crazymen wandering around.
My larger point is that a critical mass of women in crime ridden neighborhoods are the primary enablers of the criminals, basically all of whom live in their neighborhoods if not their residences. These women personally don't want to be assaulted walking down the street and aren't ideologically pro-criminal like coastal white progressives. However, their attitude is drastically different when one of their own sons/brothers/cousins/nephews knocks out a cashier or unleashes a hail of indiscriminate gunfire in the general direction of some guy standing within a crowd of innocent bystanders who offended them on social media. Unfortunately in those instances, it was just a "good kid who made some bad choices and should be given another shot".
As the article says, it's complicated but a couple of things weren't mentioned. First, MAHA. Blowing off the phone call from RFK may have been where the election was lost. Democrats were so trapped in their COVID bubble, they didn't listen to the other things the man was saying, especially about chronic illness. This resonates far beyond the right wing and women are especially sensitive to the issue. Second, war and peace. I know that foreign policy doesn't normally move votes but in extraordinary times it does. Trump was unequivocally the peace candidate and was supported by those around him like Vance, RFK and Gabbard. The Democrats forgot that young people had turned against them before on this issue (Hey, hey, LBJ, how many boys did you kill today.) and remembered only their ju-jitsu move on Nixon. Women have traditionally supported the peace party.
Your use of the term "capitulation" is just propaganda intended to continue a pointless war. Both sides in a conflict technically capitulate in the sense that all negotiated settlements involve neither side getting everything it wants. Unfortunately for the Ukrainian people, some very nefarious western European and US State Department actors decided that "rolling the dice" was preferable to a peace deal in 2022, the terms of which are now a pipe dream.
Beyoncé, Lady Gaga and Taylor Swift should have been balanced with thoughtful endorsements from non-celebrities. But the celebrities got the coverage, and the campaign did not seem to be as committed to policy issues as had been HRC's.
As Democratic, Wisconsin Governor changes the word Mother to, "inseminated person" and Maine censures a congressman for having an opinion about her rights, I don't think Democrats got the memo on the women's issue. You can't erase women, our definition, our titles, our identity, our safety, our civil rights and expect us to support you. Democrats are the party of anti women's rights. They have a lot in common with the Taliban.
Political analysis currently seems to be trapped in binary thinking. It's a lazy intellectual shortcut to treat all members of a democraphic group as sharing the same political priorities. Hell, even people grouped by political priorities don't all share the same priorities. Take abortion, for example: Pro-choice voters range in views from wanting abortion to be safe, legal, and rare to wanting it to be unrestricted and available on demand up to (and even slightly past) the point of birth, whereas pro-life voters range in views from wanting abortion to be available in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother to wanting it forbidden in all circumstances. There's a lot of overlap between these groups: abortion only in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother sounds like safe, legal, and rare. Note that in the last election, Trump took that middle position in defiance of the more absolutist pro-life advocates, while Kamala Harris and her surrogates were unable to defy the more absolutist abortion rights advocates.
Intersectionality as it is currently practiced by the most influential people in the Democratic Party reduces each constituency group to a single dimension. The worst example in the last election was Harris's Plan for Black Men, which among other things assumed that all African-American men are marijuana users. That tracks with the Biden Administration's delusion that all Hispanic voters want open borders and unrestricted illegal immigration. The Democrats lost their edge with all these groups because those voters realized the party no longer saw them as fully dimensional people.
Quantum computing will be a boon to political analysis because it will let constituencies and individuals to be treated on a continuum of beliefs and priorities rather than a checklist of binary choices.
The Democrats with Harris latched onto inauthentic and irrational media-driven memes that the average voter (e.g., Republicans want to control women's healthcare rights!... ignoring that we women sided with government forcing people to get COVID jabs!), after getting their rage-protest party time satisfied, was always bright enough to see through. Once they got there, not only did the oppose the memes, but they developed resentment for the clear inference that the Democrats considered them emotive idiots that can be so manipulated.
I voted for Hillary in 2016; Biden in 2020; Trump in 2024. Kamala Harris seemed drunk half the time she spoke, and she was married to a creep (just like Hillary). I didn't see either of these women as admirable role models. The Harris/Walz campaign was as insulting to women as the entire Biden/Harris administration had been: Sam Brinton? Really? Dylan Mulvaney? Lia Thomas? Why would any self-respecting woman vote for an administration that promoted these fools? No, women do not have penises; no, mothers are not "inseminated persons"; no, males have NO right to compete against females in sports; no, abortion should not be legal after 15 weeks, except to protect the health of the mother. Also, the price of eggs and gas DO matter, even more than the cost of abortion (which at $700, has always been unaffordable for women in Red States - so we in Texas get abortifacients from Mexico and miscarry at home). We DO care about Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, Ruby Garcia, Alex Wise Jr., Lizbeth Medina, Rachel Morin, and TWO YEAR OLD Jeremy Poou-Caceres, all of whom were murdered by people that Biden's lax border policies allowed into our country.
Most women are NOT represented by what passes for "feminism" these days. So, no, we did not vote for the party that claims "men get pregnant, too". What a shock!
Why Women are leaving Democrats:
1. They don't recognize our value and have allowed men into our spaces. Birthing people?
2. They denigrate our husbands and sons and brothers and fathers. We all have at least one of those.
3. They keep men from working decent paying jobs which puts more of the responsibility on women.
4. We don't like identity politics. Period. Not sex, race, or sexual preference.
5. It is offensive to tell us we are scared of the males in our life and have to hide our vote. Would it surprise you to know I tell all the men in my family how to vote because they don't have time to keep up with politics?
Yeah I hate that term birthing people. That’s one part of woke that nobody will miss… I hope 🤞
What a remarkably poor reading of why women voted the way they did in the last election. If the Democrats continue this way the Republicans will be romping home for years to come. Are Democrats really this bad at introspection?
They really are.
Yes. Might be brain damage at this point.
I think it's very revealing that the biggest female leaders in the Democrat party in recent years have all trafficked in anger and resentment: Michele Obama excelled at the sport; Hilary Clinton was, I am guessing, redirecting anger that should have been aimed at her misogynist husband at the electorate at large; and DEI poster child Kamala Harris just parroting lines she thought she should say, while adding idiotic new phrases she hoped might pass for profundity. The American people got tired of all the rage. And Oprah, Michele, "Lady" Gaga etc were tone deaf spokeswomen, only underscoring their uber 1 percent-ness in comparison to regular folks who really struggle to feed their families. Dems lost their edge when they went all in for transvestites doing storytime at the library and caring more about abortion than building the future with families.
Michelle "When they go low we go high" Obama excelled at anger and resentment? I guess I wasn't paying attention. All I saw was someone still cashing in on fame and adulation. In the 60s she'd have been the darling of the women's pages.
It's terribly misleading just to say "women favor abortion" as an issue. Poll after poll---the real ones, not the hoax polls funded by USAID---show that there is widespread support ONLY for 1st trimester abortion, widespread OPPOSITION to third trimester abortion (which is where the Democrats live) and about 50/50 for second trimester. In other words, at the point where the life of the mother is truly at risk, women are much more willing to be lenient on the issue. But Democrats cannot call a fetus a baby, are known for their bloody abortion "celebrations," and do nothing to rein in the lunatics. Moreover, highlighting a bunch of celebrities who rarely interact with their own kids, who use nannies, or, as with Taylor Swift, do not have kids, simply doesn't count as a "mother" issue.
I don't know how long it will take, but the day will come when even most women understand that we are depopulating ourselves to death; that fewer children are the death knell for any society---not just economically, but in terms of culture, innovation, creation and so on. And that day is coming.
Thanks for your post but I think trump has speechwriters already. I think 🤔
Any advantages Harris may have had from her identity were nullified by her embarrassing inability to think on her feet or express a cogent thought. She was a terrible candidate, not chosen by the electorate but rather by clueless insiders who have a stranglehold on a once great party.
The democrats have leaned into the female vote for the past 50 years, and went all-in once the Great Awokening began.
I think they reached the point of diminishing returns, and just kept plowing forward. Eventually they turned off more people than they attracted.
The one thing they forgot: many women have sons.
Hasn't that abortion train left the station? Now it must be legal up to 9 months, no parental notification, taxpayer funded, etc. It just seemed ghoulish that it was the Dems main focus and 'get out the vote' message. That and trans' rights, for men to have the right to play women's sports, to be in their jail cells and locker rooms.
Yes all fine maga dog whistles. You could definitely get a gig with fox or Rogan
That's so lazy. Keep doing what you're doing, it's so successful.
"In the end, polls overestimated the vice president’s advantage ..."
Well, yes. But that's because the vast majority of voters could not, and to their credit will not, buy into the identity politics gambit of Democrats in general, and Harris' enthusiasts in particular.
By any measure of merit above identity, Harris was a miserable and embarrassing choice for President, arguably even more flawed than the conspicuously, cognitively impaired Joe Biden.
Abortion law was never going to change, regardless of who won. Neither party had 50 Senate votes, let alone 60, to enact a federal abortion law, either pro or con.
After inflation and immigration, crime probably hurt Dems the most. More than 1/2 of US women no longer feel comfortable walking around their neighborhoods at night. Crime hits mothers and single women hardest. Worrying a child, walking to school or playing outside, might encounter violence, is its' own special kind of hell. Crime infantilizes women. Do you know who cannot leave the house alone, at night? Children and single women dwelling in crime ridden neighborhoods.
Not long before the election a divorced, retired friend returned home to her swanky CA neighborhood. Cops were everywhere. Crimefree for 30 years, the development had its' first burglary. No one was harmed, but what the thieves did not steal, they broke.
A cop investigating, explained it was South American criminal gang, on tourist visas. They used children, as watchers. When someone left their home with luggage, a gang would descend on the property, quickly steal anything of value and smash the rest, to impede the investigation. They would stay 30 days, return to South America, and be back a month later.
Asked by residents, what to do, to avoid being victims, a cop deadpanned,"move to the MidWest, or buy a big, mean dog." The neighborhood, full of wealthy, liberal, divorced and widowed, retirees was aghast. For most, it was their first, personal brush with crime. My friend laughed that a few admitted to becoming Trump supporters, after that. More probably voted for him, but would not never admit it.
"Do you know who cannot leave the house alone, at night? Children and single women dwelling in crime ridden neighborhoods."
I get where you're coming from, but the women who live in those crime ridden neighborhoods overwhelmingly voted for Kamala Harris (and generally are the most reliable Democratic voting block). It's a mistake to confuse women who live in neighborhoods that have long been crime ridden with women who live in nicer neighborhoods that since 2020 have experienced an increase in crime. Alternatively, these women are not to be confused with upper class professional women who have since drastically reduced their use of public transit due to the post-Floydmania increase in scary crazymen wandering around.
My larger point is that a critical mass of women in crime ridden neighborhoods are the primary enablers of the criminals, basically all of whom live in their neighborhoods if not their residences. These women personally don't want to be assaulted walking down the street and aren't ideologically pro-criminal like coastal white progressives. However, their attitude is drastically different when one of their own sons/brothers/cousins/nephews knocks out a cashier or unleashes a hail of indiscriminate gunfire in the general direction of some guy standing within a crowd of innocent bystanders who offended them on social media. Unfortunately in those instances, it was just a "good kid who made some bad choices and should be given another shot".
As the article says, it's complicated but a couple of things weren't mentioned. First, MAHA. Blowing off the phone call from RFK may have been where the election was lost. Democrats were so trapped in their COVID bubble, they didn't listen to the other things the man was saying, especially about chronic illness. This resonates far beyond the right wing and women are especially sensitive to the issue. Second, war and peace. I know that foreign policy doesn't normally move votes but in extraordinary times it does. Trump was unequivocally the peace candidate and was supported by those around him like Vance, RFK and Gabbard. The Democrats forgot that young people had turned against them before on this issue (Hey, hey, LBJ, how many boys did you kill today.) and remembered only their ju-jitsu move on Nixon. Women have traditionally supported the peace party.
Yeah but peace through capitulation is not cool man
Your use of the term "capitulation" is just propaganda intended to continue a pointless war. Both sides in a conflict technically capitulate in the sense that all negotiated settlements involve neither side getting everything it wants. Unfortunately for the Ukrainian people, some very nefarious western European and US State Department actors decided that "rolling the dice" was preferable to a peace deal in 2022, the terms of which are now a pipe dream.
But WW3 is cool, eh.
Beyoncé, Lady Gaga and Taylor Swift should have been balanced with thoughtful endorsements from non-celebrities. But the celebrities got the coverage, and the campaign did not seem to be as committed to policy issues as had been HRC's.
As Democratic, Wisconsin Governor changes the word Mother to, "inseminated person" and Maine censures a congressman for having an opinion about her rights, I don't think Democrats got the memo on the women's issue. You can't erase women, our definition, our titles, our identity, our safety, our civil rights and expect us to support you. Democrats are the party of anti women's rights. They have a lot in common with the Taliban.
It’s the economy stupid. The cost of living was higher for all sexes believe it or not…
Political analysis currently seems to be trapped in binary thinking. It's a lazy intellectual shortcut to treat all members of a democraphic group as sharing the same political priorities. Hell, even people grouped by political priorities don't all share the same priorities. Take abortion, for example: Pro-choice voters range in views from wanting abortion to be safe, legal, and rare to wanting it to be unrestricted and available on demand up to (and even slightly past) the point of birth, whereas pro-life voters range in views from wanting abortion to be available in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother to wanting it forbidden in all circumstances. There's a lot of overlap between these groups: abortion only in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother sounds like safe, legal, and rare. Note that in the last election, Trump took that middle position in defiance of the more absolutist pro-life advocates, while Kamala Harris and her surrogates were unable to defy the more absolutist abortion rights advocates.
Intersectionality as it is currently practiced by the most influential people in the Democratic Party reduces each constituency group to a single dimension. The worst example in the last election was Harris's Plan for Black Men, which among other things assumed that all African-American men are marijuana users. That tracks with the Biden Administration's delusion that all Hispanic voters want open borders and unrestricted illegal immigration. The Democrats lost their edge with all these groups because those voters realized the party no longer saw them as fully dimensional people.
Quantum computing will be a boon to political analysis because it will let constituencies and individuals to be treated on a continuum of beliefs and priorities rather than a checklist of binary choices.
The Democrats with Harris latched onto inauthentic and irrational media-driven memes that the average voter (e.g., Republicans want to control women's healthcare rights!... ignoring that we women sided with government forcing people to get COVID jabs!), after getting their rage-protest party time satisfied, was always bright enough to see through. Once they got there, not only did the oppose the memes, but they developed resentment for the clear inference that the Democrats considered them emotive idiots that can be so manipulated.