Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Define "all the time." Honestly, who would talk to someone like that? I've never heard anything like that said to a woman in 40 years.

You'd be surprised at what people say and do.

She had probably been told by donors and other people inside the party that she not an electable woman, which is different than an electable man. If she were a man she would have won the nomination—no question in my mind.

If she were a man, she would just be another Bernie Sanders...and he hasn't won any nominations.

Mmm no. I really think she is nothing like Bernie Sanders. I would never have voted to nominate him. I voted for her though.

The way people perceive female politicians is endlessly fascinating to study.

Warren didn't get the nomination for many of the same reasons that Bernie didn't. Her views are way to the left of the median Democratic voter. Many people think Democrats are wild leftists because many of the biggest and loudest activist groups are leftists. But the actual coalition of voters is pretty moderate, so you get nominees like Biden, Clinton and Obama instead of ones like Bernie, Kucinich, and Warren.

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn't she just change her gender?

There is a simple to solution is available for her perceived problem? More of more people are doing it every day.

Yes she can be our first gender fluid president!

the creators of these terms apparently call that hostility to men (HM). Hostile sexism apparently implies hostility to women based on their definitions.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry - here is the WAPO study: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/11/women-candidates-must-overcome-sexist-attitudes-even-democratic-primary/

If you hate men is that "hostile sexism"?

Why doesn't she just change her gender?

There is a simple to solution is available for her perceived problem? More of more people are doing it every day.

Anonymous wrote:Honest question — why do you folks still love her after she was caught red handed lying about her racial and ethnic background? Do you not see this as indicative of being a low integrity human being?

Women have to be perfect. Yet, men like Trump can lie all day long and people routinely vote for that *checks notes* "low integrity human being."

Sorry - here is the WAPO study: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/11/women-candidates-must-overcome-sexist-attitudes-even-democratic-primary/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Define "all the time." Honestly, who would talk to someone like that? I've never heard anything like that said to a woman in 40 years.

You'd be surprised at what people say and do.

She had probably been told by donors and other people inside the party that she not an electable woman, which is different than an electable man. If she were a man she would have won the nomination—no question in my mind.

If she were a man, she would just be another Bernie Sanders...and he hasn't won any nominations.

There have been several polls and studies showing that people who prefer female candidates vote switch because they don't think their neighbors are voting for them, i.e. they vote for perceived electability. Here's one: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-06/daily-beast-gender-topline-2019-06-17-v2.pdf

Also, 25% of Dem voters scored higher than average on a "Hostile Sexism" score, per a Washington Post study. So, it's a real problem for Democrats.

There was also an old study (can't find it, but it's in Anne Kornblut's book) that showed that historically both Dems and Republicans would switch vote to other party, when theirs ran a woman candidate. The study used actual women as theoretical nominees.

I don't know why anyone wouldn't believe this, though she likely said it so crudely to drive the point home. Though I'm sure people will ding her for that. She's just not that likeable. (/s)

Anonymous wrote:Oh sure.

File this one under complete hysteria and things that have probably never happened. This sounds like some kind of derangement syndrome based on delusions of persecution and a perception that the world is out to get you. It's like all the stories you hear of college students who've gone completely mad over identity and race issues, so when they find they aren't being persecuted on campus, they feel compelled to make up fake stories and narratives about persecution on campus.

When you're constantly told you're a victim in life yet reality does not jive with that persecution narrative, it's shocking how many people will come up with fake or really weak stories and accusations to justify their permanent victimhood status.

Honestly, YOU sound deranged. Where are you hearing/reading all these stories? Because I read and listen to a lot of news every day from varied sourced and I haven't heard about "all the stories you hear of college students who've gone completely made over identity and race issues...." Maybe you should try getting your "news" from something other than RWNJ channels.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Define "all the time." Honestly, who would talk to someone like that? I've never heard anything like that said to a woman in 40 years.

You'd be surprised at what people say and do.

She had probably been told by donors and other people inside the party that she not an electable woman, which is different than an electable man. If she were a man she would have won the nomination—no question in my mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dems worry about other people not voting for her because she is a woman. Dems are super worried about not catering to everyone else.

I wouldn't vote for Elizabeth Warren, and its not because she's a woman. Shes not very relatable and could learn a lot from someone like Michele Obama.

Who needs competency, dedication to principles and intelligence if they aren’t “relatable”? We are an idiocracy.

Guess what, Elizabeth Warren fan? Some candidates have all of those qualities. Being able to relate to others while communicating one's positions is pretty darn important in any position, office, job, etc.

She’s quite relatable. I saw her in person in 2002 at a campaign stop for a different candidate and she was amazing.

“Relatable” is a dog whistle for feminine. She is relatable to me in the sense that she’s not interested in projecting sex appeal or traditional feminine qualities. A lot of people, including women, are turned off by that. It sucks.

Oh sure.

File this one under complete hysteria and things that have probably never happened. This sounds like some kind of derangement syndrome based on delusions of persecution and a perception that the world is out to get you. It's like all the stories you hear of college students who've gone completely mad over identity and race issues, so when they find they aren't being persecuted on campus, they feel compelled to make up fake stories and narratives about persecution on campus.

When you're constantly told you're a victim in life yet reality does not jive with that persecution narrative, it's shocking how many people will come up with fake or really weak stories and accusations to justify their permanent victimhood status.

Honest question — why do you folks still love her after she was caught red handed lying about her racial and ethnic background? Do you not see this as indicative of being a low integrity human being?