New Republic: The Democrats Must Nominate Another Woman for President

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

I like how the party Right* went from claiming that misogyny is the primary (if not sole - remember all of the claims that a male version of Clinton would've "won in a landslide") reason for Clinton's loss to avoid owing up to their own mistakes, only to piggyback off of a grassroots movement against sexual assault to try and make the next primary a battle of identities rather than ideas. What a bunch of disingenuous clowns.

*Not applicable to Heer, but rather to the many Clintonistas, such as ever-abominable hack (& probable future Health Secretary under the next Dem. Administration) Neera Tanden.

They seem to have realized that defending Hillary and Bill has no upside anymore. Gillibrand, who owes much of her success to the Clinton machine's support, will not be the last major democratic contender to condemn them. I think the democrats will nominate a woman, but it shouldn't impact the result of the election unless they try to run with "vote for HER because it's time for a WOMAN to be president" again while ignoring the real issues. What even was Hillary's message? It seemed like her gender was her only selling point. While I dislike Warren, she'd at least rally the base behind ideas.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

They seem to have realized that defending Hillary and Bill has no upside anymore. Gillibrand, who owes much of her success to the Clinton machine's support, will not be the last major democratic contender to condemn them. I think the democrats will nominate a woman, but it shouldn't impact the result of the election unless they try to run with "vote for HER because it's time for a WOMAN to be president" again while ignoring the real issues. What even was Hillary's message? It seemed like her gender was her only selling point. While I dislike Warren, she'd at least rally the base behind ideas.

Hillary's platform had a huge number of policies described, and in an ideal world, people would have just looked that up and knew what she was selling them. But that's not the world we live in. People want a clear, concise message about a generic theme that doesn't involve a lot of policy nuance. The only way to drive that into people's skulls is to ramble on about it over and over again, and talk about it every chance they get. But we all know Hillary didn't do that. In fact, ad-wise, she talked about policy less than almost every party candidate for the last generation, iirc.

Point is, the actual ideas are not the problem here. The next candidate, Warren included, needs to find an clear, effective theme for their ideas that makes sense to people. However this is not something I think Warren would have trouble with. She comes off as authentic, and she already has a brand that she sells well.

I knew what policies she ostensibly supported, but you cannot deny that she failed to in any way make the case for them. Her campaign was focused entirely on "Vote for me because I'm a woman and Trump is an asshole" She wavered considerably on policy when actually asked, as seen by her trying to walk back calling TPP the gold standard of trade deals.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

It doesn't matter how you spin it - it doesn't change the fact that you're voting for, or against, someone strictly because of their gender. I mean, it is possible to vote for female candidates strictly based on their qualifications - their platform, past record, personality, etc. - and still make leaps and bounds with gender equality. Case in point: your state's House of Felegates elections in 2017.

The percentage of the electorate that wouldn't vote for a woman is negligible. Overall, men are more likely to go into politics and run for office. Women are under represented because of the aggregate of individual decisions, not sexism. No doubt, with younger generations, the percentage of politicians who are female is higher. As older incumbents (who are mostly male) retire, more women will take their places. Wave elections also help in sweeping out incumbents. While republicans have less women than democrats, they still sent women to the senate to fill seats left open by the retirement of longtime democrat senators Harkin (IA) and Rockefeller (WV). I think the male majority in politics is likely to remain, but become much less pronounced. I couldn't care less about the gender of a politician so long as they vote the right way.

Side note: Atheists/agnostics are perhaps the most under-represented group in Congress. I still don't believe I could win in a republican primary because of my lack of religion. While this is a tad annoying, I'm certainly not going to vote for someone just because they don't believe.