But women have gotten many, many more votes than leftists in presidential elections so far so the average voter is definitely more interested in voting for a woman than a leftist.
I know that the amount of sexism with democrats and leftists (just look at the reactions here to the Graham Platner scandal) definitely played a part in Clinton and Harris losing but Biden winning.
But women have gotten many, many more votes than leftists in presidential elections so far so the average voter is definitely more interested in voting for a woman than a leftist.
But there was a point where women had no votes for president, was that a reason for them not to run? Do you really not see the error?
Let’s keep those goalposts where they are for a little longer: are you still saying that because any given subset of people haven’t been in past presidential elections, they shouldn’t run for president? I think it’s important to grasp what that does to the pool of people that are considered suitable for the presidency.
You didn’t ask me the question, but it’s not a useful question to ask.
I’m trying to help you understand the flaw in your reasoning; to see that this exact reason would have only straight white Christian male landowners ever be president. I am fairly confident that’s not what you want, so I’m hoping you’ll be open to acknowledging the flaw in what you’re implying.
This logic suggests that women need not apply for presidential elections, after all, men have won them 100% of the time.
Is that really the rationale you want to lean on?
I think we can do better than that, myself.
But women have gotten many, many more votes than leftists in presidential elections so far so the average voter is definitely more interested in voting for a woman than a leftist.
I know that the amount of sexism with democrats and leftists (just look at the reactions here to the Graham Platner scandal) definitely played a part in Clinton and Harris losing but Biden winning.
But there was a point where women had no votes for president, was that a reason for them not to run? Do you really not see the error?
The women also had a lot of people in lower offices so they had put in the ground work too.
Let’s keep those goalposts where they are for a little longer: are you still saying that because any given subset of people haven’t been in past presidential elections, they shouldn’t run for president? I think it’s important to grasp what that does to the pool of people that are considered suitable for the presidency.
Actually what I originally asked was:
But you keep dodging that question.
It kind of sounds like you’re setting up to try to equate leftists and the struggles of black americans.
You didn’t ask me the question, but it’s not a useful question to ask.
I’m trying to help you understand the flaw in your reasoning; to see that this exact reason would have only straight white Christian male landowners ever be president. I am fairly confident that’s not what you want, so I’m hoping you’ll be open to acknowledging the flaw in what you’re implying.
You responded directly after that question and still you are dodging it.
There’s nothing to dodge; the answer is obvious. It’s exactly why I asked about women in the same framing.
I’m beginning to think you’re not interested in understanding your mistake.