"To understand that America would rather elect a rapist than a woman."
November 10, 2024 11:08 AM Subscribe
The Fury Gap (slJessica Valenti, previously) 'Donald Trump’s win this week, bolstered by online shitposters and billionaire misogynists, has shifted something fundamental in young women. And while we’ll see plenty of ink spilled in election post-mortems about the online radicalization of young white men—as there should be—it would be a mistake to miss the story of how this election is doing something similar to their female counterparts.'
One of my concerns is this coming at the same point as a bunch of transphobic garbage, we may see a lot of women being radicalized into TERFs. I’ve already seen signs of it unfortunately.
posted by brook horse at 11:54 AM on November 10 [32 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 11:54 AM on November 10 [32 favorites]
One of my concerns is this coming at the same point as a bunch of transphobic garbage, we may see a lot of women being radicalized into TERFs. I’ve already seen signs of it unfortunately.
The UK is sadly a too real example of this. Whipped into a frenzy by desperate Tories trying to drive whatever wedge they can.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:00 PM on November 10 [12 favorites]
The UK is sadly a too real example of this. Whipped into a frenzy by desperate Tories trying to drive whatever wedge they can.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:00 PM on November 10 [12 favorites]
We seem to be living the prologue to Idiocracy now. One group will continue to reproduce, skewing the demographic further and further into the world that was portrayed in that unintentional documentary.
posted by fgdmorr at 12:32 PM on November 10 [3 favorites]
posted by fgdmorr at 12:32 PM on November 10 [3 favorites]
has shifted something fundamental in young women
I'm calling balderdash here.
It might have shifted something fundamental in the author (just as it did in this middle aged male commenter), but from last week forward, nobody should claim to represent a large mass of women without evidence to that effect.
posted by ocschwar at 12:43 PM on November 10 [27 favorites]
I'm calling balderdash here.
It might have shifted something fundamental in the author (just as it did in this middle aged male commenter), but from last week forward, nobody should claim to represent a large mass of women without evidence to that effect.
posted by ocschwar at 12:43 PM on November 10 [27 favorites]
The truth is that men—young and old—are terrified: They’re afraid of being alone, afraid of losing power, and afraid that they have no idea who they are if they can’t subjugate women.
But why, oh why, does it always (always!) come back to the poor, underprivileged, overburdened men?
(I know. I do know)
posted by Dashy at 1:08 PM on November 10 [7 favorites]
But why, oh why, does it always (always!) come back to the poor, underprivileged, overburdened men?
(I know. I do know)
posted by Dashy at 1:08 PM on November 10 [7 favorites]
Add in that his base believe 100% he's being bullied by women and liberal prosecutors and judges.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 1:32 PM on November 10 [4 favorites]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 1:32 PM on November 10 [4 favorites]
Emboldened men celebrate Donald Trump’s win by hurling attacks on women online (Katie Herchenroeder for Vanity Fair via archive.is)
posted by box at 1:36 PM on November 10 [6 favorites]
posted by box at 1:36 PM on November 10 [6 favorites]
Trump seems to have done significantly better with young (ages 18-29) women than he did in 2020. (cite)
posted by kickingtheground at 1:55 PM on November 10 [4 favorites]
posted by kickingtheground at 1:55 PM on November 10 [4 favorites]
Why would any woman vote for the monster Trump?
Because there's a racial hierarchy along with the gender hierarchy. A certain set of white women are more than happy to be second on the ladder as long as their station in said hierarchy means they can consider themselves above just about everyone else and can look down on them. White women are happy to be subservient if they're better than all Black people in their little imaginary social ranking.
It's like how back in the day Black men would get lynched for whistling at a white woman. They basically want that back again. They want the impunity and are willing to stick by certain rules (or at least work around them when they become a problem) as long as they get that impunity.
Trump seems to have done significantly better with young (ages 18-29) women than he did in 2020. (cite)
Doubtful. The percentage increased but the turnout went down. Young Democrats stayed away, not more voted for Trump.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:09 PM on November 10 [18 favorites]
Because there's a racial hierarchy along with the gender hierarchy. A certain set of white women are more than happy to be second on the ladder as long as their station in said hierarchy means they can consider themselves above just about everyone else and can look down on them. White women are happy to be subservient if they're better than all Black people in their little imaginary social ranking.
It's like how back in the day Black men would get lynched for whistling at a white woman. They basically want that back again. They want the impunity and are willing to stick by certain rules (or at least work around them when they become a problem) as long as they get that impunity.
Trump seems to have done significantly better with young (ages 18-29) women than he did in 2020. (cite)
Doubtful. The percentage increased but the turnout went down. Young Democrats stayed away, not more voted for Trump.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:09 PM on November 10 [18 favorites]
I have 0 interest in the ten thousand stories coming up on how the Democrats misunderstood the MAGA voter's needs.
posted by coberh at 2:15 PM on November 10 [69 favorites]
posted by coberh at 2:15 PM on November 10 [69 favorites]
Still waiting for the inevitable "interview in a Midwest diner" take.
posted by SPrintF at 2:19 PM on November 10 [6 favorites]
posted by SPrintF at 2:19 PM on November 10 [6 favorites]
Looking forward to the "interview in a Midwest diner" take about a year from now.
posted by JohnFromGR at 2:21 PM on November 10 [9 favorites]
posted by JohnFromGR at 2:21 PM on November 10 [9 favorites]
Still waiting for the inevitable "interview in a Midwest diner" take.
* With the county GOP chairman posing as an "undecided voter"
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:24 PM on November 10 [24 favorites]
* With the county GOP chairman posing as an "undecided voter"
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:24 PM on November 10 [24 favorites]
Young Democrats stayed away, not more voted for Trump.
A distinction without a difference.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:22 PM on November 10 [5 favorites]
A distinction without a difference.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:22 PM on November 10 [5 favorites]
A distinction without a difference.
No difference in terms of the outcome of the election outcome but of course it makes a difference in the root causes of that outcome.
posted by stevil at 3:30 PM on November 10 [13 favorites]
No difference in terms of the outcome of the election outcome but of course it makes a difference in the root causes of that outcome.
posted by stevil at 3:30 PM on November 10 [13 favorites]
one of the things i keep seeing is references to 4b, all over social media, and jessica valenti even mentions it in the post above.
i've talked about 4b vis-à-vis a collapsing korean birth rate before. because i do think women's rage is very valid, i really hope american women don't appropriate the 4b movement given how its origins are from very queerphobic, transphobic, anti-sex-worker anonymous message boards (think 4chan for women), and it has only gotten worse as they attack women who do not do their activism in the same way. some have even gone full right-wing and started shilling crypto.
they've even been harassing nobel laureate HAN kang for having once been married and having a child.
posted by i used to be someone else at 3:52 PM on November 10 [11 favorites]
i've talked about 4b vis-à-vis a collapsing korean birth rate before. because i do think women's rage is very valid, i really hope american women don't appropriate the 4b movement given how its origins are from very queerphobic, transphobic, anti-sex-worker anonymous message boards (think 4chan for women), and it has only gotten worse as they attack women who do not do their activism in the same way. some have even gone full right-wing and started shilling crypto.
they've even been harassing nobel laureate HAN kang for having once been married and having a child.
posted by i used to be someone else at 3:52 PM on November 10 [11 favorites]
"I have 0 interest in the ten thousand stories coming up on how the Democrats misunderstood the MAGA voter's needs."
There will be zero introspection. Liberal narcissism dictates that it must always be someone else's fault. They will scapegoat minorities who failed to fall in line, blame Russia, blame misogyny, blame "irrational" voters who choose candidates based on "emotion" - anything to avoid looking at their own record of failure. They are congenitally incapable of self-criticism.
posted by tovarisch at 4:00 PM on November 10 [26 favorites]
There will be zero introspection. Liberal narcissism dictates that it must always be someone else's fault. They will scapegoat minorities who failed to fall in line, blame Russia, blame misogyny, blame "irrational" voters who choose candidates based on "emotion" - anything to avoid looking at their own record of failure. They are congenitally incapable of self-criticism.
posted by tovarisch at 4:00 PM on November 10 [26 favorites]
Young Democrats stayed away, not more voted for Trump.
A distinction without a difference.
THIS. Young people, learn this lesson well.
posted by ocschwar at 4:06 PM on November 10 [4 favorites]
A distinction without a difference.
THIS. Young people, learn this lesson well.
posted by ocschwar at 4:06 PM on November 10 [4 favorites]
Young Democrats stayed away, not more voted for Trump.
A distinction without a difference.
THIS. Young people, learn this lesson well.
Holy god in heaven the dems are never going to learn are they. When people don't vote for you, I'm sorry but you can't blame them, that's just cuckoo. That's like a movie star blaming movie-goers for a weak first-week box office.
Again, Harris & Co. spent a lot of time showing how much they were like Republicans, apparently to get the mythical Republicans-who-will-vote-blue. So all these young people who said, "hey sorry, I can take a lot of centrist stuff but I cannot tolerate funding genocide," didn't vote for her. And somehow this is their fault, and not Harris and the Democratic party.
posted by nushustu at 4:41 PM on November 10 [28 favorites]
A distinction without a difference.
THIS. Young people, learn this lesson well.
Holy god in heaven the dems are never going to learn are they. When people don't vote for you, I'm sorry but you can't blame them, that's just cuckoo. That's like a movie star blaming movie-goers for a weak first-week box office.
Again, Harris & Co. spent a lot of time showing how much they were like Republicans, apparently to get the mythical Republicans-who-will-vote-blue. So all these young people who said, "hey sorry, I can take a lot of centrist stuff but I cannot tolerate funding genocide," didn't vote for her. And somehow this is their fault, and not Harris and the Democratic party.
posted by nushustu at 4:41 PM on November 10 [28 favorites]
They want the impunity and are willing to stick by certain rules (or at least work around them when they become a problem) as long as they get that impunity.
Also, IME (and I have lived in Texas most of my life, so I know some of these women) they believe in both the Shirley exception and the just-world fallacy (assuming they are just, which ... I know). The bad thing can happen to women like them but only because that woman did something wrong: dressed slutty, was in the wrong place at the wrong time, dated or married the wrong man, etc. But women who vote that way generally believe the negative consequences will not happen to them. They only change their mind, and often only on the one subject, when they personally receive, or someone around them personally receives, the consequences, aka their own face gets eaten by the leopard.
See also: my abortion is the only good abortion.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 4:43 PM on November 10 [14 favorites]
Also, IME (and I have lived in Texas most of my life, so I know some of these women) they believe in both the Shirley exception and the just-world fallacy (assuming they are just, which ... I know). The bad thing can happen to women like them but only because that woman did something wrong: dressed slutty, was in the wrong place at the wrong time, dated or married the wrong man, etc. But women who vote that way generally believe the negative consequences will not happen to them. They only change their mind, and often only on the one subject, when they personally receive, or someone around them personally receives, the consequences, aka their own face gets eaten by the leopard.
See also: my abortion is the only good abortion.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 4:43 PM on November 10 [14 favorites]
Like honestly, it was pretty obvious that they KNEW they couldn't win over the young voters without taking a stand against Israel. And they decided they could not do that, and that they would have a better chance of winning over Republicans.
I wonder how many votes Harris would have lost if she HAD come out against Israel? I wonder how that number stacks up with young voters who didn't show up?
posted by nushustu at 4:43 PM on November 10 [11 favorites]
I wonder how many votes Harris would have lost if she HAD come out against Israel? I wonder how that number stacks up with young voters who didn't show up?
posted by nushustu at 4:43 PM on November 10 [11 favorites]
It’s interesting, scary and many other things to hear the 15 year-old and 50 year-old women in my life saying essentially the same thing, only slightly paraphrased: ugh, guys suck, I give up
posted by gottabefunky at 4:53 PM on November 10 [8 favorites]
posted by gottabefunky at 4:53 PM on November 10 [8 favorites]
Tovarisch, your comment seems to elevate “winning elections” over “sticking to one’s principles”. Sure, we probably could have done better electorally by betraying our values, just like all of those so-called Christians who just voted to put a convicted rapist in the White House did.
Frankly, fuck alllll of that noise. The ends do not justify those means.
posted by FallibleHuman at 5:15 PM on November 10 [7 favorites]
Frankly, fuck alllll of that noise. The ends do not justify those means.
posted by FallibleHuman at 5:15 PM on November 10 [7 favorites]
You can stick to your principles while also working to change the behavior of people whose beliefs and actions you abhor. Sometimes that means taking a look at how you're interacting with people whose values, history, and behavior are wildly different from your own and making changes in how you try and reach them. That doesn't mean changing your own values.
posted by brook horse at 5:29 PM on November 10 [13 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 5:29 PM on November 10 [13 favorites]
I agree, brook horse, which is why I volunteered with People’s Action in the run up to the election.
My point stands: the vote count in isolation is an inadequate framing.
posted by FallibleHuman at 5:49 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
My point stands: the vote count in isolation is an inadequate framing.
posted by FallibleHuman at 5:49 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
Yes, the public didn’t shift for Trump. Rather, the public rejected the Harris campaign. Why that happened is the question that needs answering. Misogyny is part of the answer but not the whole picture.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 6:02 PM on November 10 [6 favorites]
posted by Big Al 8000 at 6:02 PM on November 10 [6 favorites]
Misogyny is part of the answer but not the whole picture.
Sure. But it might be enough on this occasion.
Anybody who thinks Dem voters can't be misogynist has not been paying attention to the world. That could well explain a critical chunk of the drop in the Dem vote since 2020.
posted by Pouteria at 6:20 PM on November 10 [7 favorites]
Sure. But it might be enough on this occasion.
Anybody who thinks Dem voters can't be misogynist has not been paying attention to the world. That could well explain a critical chunk of the drop in the Dem vote since 2020.
posted by Pouteria at 6:20 PM on November 10 [7 favorites]
One of my concerns is this coming at the same point as a bunch of transphobic garbage, we may see a lot of women being radicalized into TERFs
Yep. Look for "allies" using the language and logic of transphobia and misogyny for hot takes that are superficially on the side of righteousness. You'll find it in this very thread.
posted by Dysk at 6:36 PM on November 10 [9 favorites]
Yep. Look for "allies" using the language and logic of transphobia and misogyny for hot takes that are superficially on the side of righteousness. You'll find it in this very thread.
posted by Dysk at 6:36 PM on November 10 [9 favorites]
Yes, the public didn’t shift for Trump. Rather, the public rejected the Harris campaign. Why that happened is the question that needs answering. Misogyny is part of the answer but not the whole picture.
Yeah. The other half is racism.
Ds run a woman candidate and 5 million D voters evaporate. Ds run a Black woman and 10 million D voters evaporate. It's not like the women candidates are any more problematic than the male Democratic candidates. If you don't want imperialism you won't vote for Obama or Biden but not Clinton or Harris.
People want to think there's some ulterior motive because otherwise it means a third of the country minimum are ultimately sexist and racist beyond belief to the point where they'd choose fascism over a Black woman as president. Hell, racism was the fracture line of the New Deal Coalition. The second Black people became eligible for the New Deal white people turned around and immediately started voting to scrap it. There are just far too many white people in this country that will happily cut off their nose to spite their face as long as it fucks a Black person harder.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:58 PM on November 10 [47 favorites]
Yeah. The other half is racism.
Ds run a woman candidate and 5 million D voters evaporate. Ds run a Black woman and 10 million D voters evaporate. It's not like the women candidates are any more problematic than the male Democratic candidates. If you don't want imperialism you won't vote for Obama or Biden but not Clinton or Harris.
People want to think there's some ulterior motive because otherwise it means a third of the country minimum are ultimately sexist and racist beyond belief to the point where they'd choose fascism over a Black woman as president. Hell, racism was the fracture line of the New Deal Coalition. The second Black people became eligible for the New Deal white people turned around and immediately started voting to scrap it. There are just far too many white people in this country that will happily cut off their nose to spite their face as long as it fucks a Black person harder.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:58 PM on November 10 [47 favorites]
There will be zero introspection. Liberal narcissism dictates that it must always be someone else's fault. They will...blame misogyny
ok but um
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:00 PM on November 10 [13 favorites]
ok but um
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:00 PM on November 10 [13 favorites]
Racism and misogyny may be factors, but pointing to them as why Harris lost effectively switches off introspection and the search for things the democrats could have done differently to win the election. It's remotely possible that a man who ran the exact same campaign, and was not widely perceived as senile, would have won. But would you really like to test that idea out in 2028? Because I have a pretty bad feeling about it.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:33 PM on November 10 [8 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:33 PM on November 10 [8 favorites]
the majority of single women have taken themselves off the dating market entirely.
If you actually read the article she linked, you'll see this :
Majorities of singles in the 18-to-29 and 30-to-49 age groups are interested in a relationship or dates, but that’s not the case for their older counterparts. Half of those ages 50 to 64 and three-quarters of those 65 and older are not looking for either a relationship or dates at the moment.
So yes, she is correct if you include those 65 or older. Otherwise, no.
posted by panama joe at 7:55 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
If you actually read the article she linked, you'll see this :
Majorities of singles in the 18-to-29 and 30-to-49 age groups are interested in a relationship or dates, but that’s not the case for their older counterparts. Half of those ages 50 to 64 and three-quarters of those 65 and older are not looking for either a relationship or dates at the moment.
So yes, she is correct if you include those 65 or older. Otherwise, no.
posted by panama joe at 7:55 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
This comment is probably useless but hey I'm gonna make it anyway.
Is the problem that Harris is a woman of colour, or is the problem that she's a former cop and current genocide supporter who campaigned on a platform that was more worried about reconciling with the republicans than appealing to, honestly, fucking *any*body?
posted by rhooke at 8:00 PM on November 10 [13 favorites]
Is the problem that Harris is a woman of colour, or is the problem that she's a former cop and current genocide supporter who campaigned on a platform that was more worried about reconciling with the republicans than appealing to, honestly, fucking *any*body?
posted by rhooke at 8:00 PM on November 10 [13 favorites]
Racism and misogyny may be factors, but pointing to them as why Harris lost effectively switches off introspection and the search for things the democrats could have done differently to win the election.
That depends entirely on whether it is true or not.
If not true, then I agree.
But if true, then I disagree. Figuring out how to neutralise or work around those factors, among others, is exactly what the Dems should be doing.
posted by Pouteria at 8:04 PM on November 10 [1 favorite]
That depends entirely on whether it is true or not.
If not true, then I agree.
But if true, then I disagree. Figuring out how to neutralise or work around those factors, among others, is exactly what the Dems should be doing.
posted by Pouteria at 8:04 PM on November 10 [1 favorite]
So yes, she is correct if you include those 65 or older. Otherwise, no.
You're looking at the age group stats across genders. The stats for women are only broken down into 18-39 (61-39 looking/not) and 40+ (29-71 looking/not). So you only have to include those 40+ to get there, with no data to break it down further. You have to include up to 65+ for just single people to be not looking in majority, but that's regardless of gender.
posted by Dysk at 8:05 PM on November 10 [3 favorites]
You're looking at the age group stats across genders. The stats for women are only broken down into 18-39 (61-39 looking/not) and 40+ (29-71 looking/not). So you only have to include those 40+ to get there, with no data to break it down further. You have to include up to 65+ for just single people to be not looking in majority, but that's regardless of gender.
posted by Dysk at 8:05 PM on November 10 [3 favorites]
Young Democrats stayed away, not more voted for Trump.
A distinction without a difference.
I believe there is a difference. Someone who can't be bothered to vote is someone who doesn't care enough to even take that small action. Someone who doesn't vote is worse in my view, noting there are a small number of people who have genuine difficulty in voting for various reasons.
posted by dg at 8:08 PM on November 10 [5 favorites]
A distinction without a difference.
I believe there is a difference. Someone who can't be bothered to vote is someone who doesn't care enough to even take that small action. Someone who doesn't vote is worse in my view, noting there are a small number of people who have genuine difficulty in voting for various reasons.
posted by dg at 8:08 PM on November 10 [5 favorites]
But if true, then I disagree. Figuring out how to neutralise or work around those factors, among others, is exactly what the Dems should be doing.
But...how? Does it really seem easier to, in the next four years, solve racism and sexism than it would be to recalibrate the party line so it isn't "somewhere to the right of Mitt Romney?"
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:18 PM on November 10 [4 favorites]
But...how? Does it really seem easier to, in the next four years, solve racism and sexism than it would be to recalibrate the party line so it isn't "somewhere to the right of Mitt Romney?"
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:18 PM on November 10 [4 favorites]
And I want to make it very plain, I genuinely believe a woman of color could win the presidency as a democrat. I think Harris lost because she was too right of center, and I think that's why Clinton lost, and I think it's why Biden would have lost if he hadn't been up against a shitshow so grievous it made George W. Bush look like Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But it turned out Americans didn't like a centrist democrat any more than they thought they would have in 2016, and let's be real, that's why Biden was losing, not his debate performance, because he had been losing all along. Harris lost because she was seen as extension of Biden. No one wanted Biden. In my opinion.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:26 PM on November 10 [5 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:26 PM on November 10 [5 favorites]
[...]anything to avoid looking at their own record of failure.
I think that's more universal than you're acknowledging. Like, why did Bernie Sanders lose the 2016 primary despite having the better policies (and, arguably, what could be seen as the more effective messaging), etc.
Now that I think of it -- and maybe my media bubble has just kept it from me -- there really does seem to be a dearth of discussion about what the left can do differently to finally win a Dem presidential primary for once. We're not even tempted to say Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren have only themselves to blame for failing to win over the primary electorate, are we? (I voted for both, and would vote for either again, in case it sounds otherwise, but it's also just not in my nature to have spent any of that time/energy, even during the primary, tearing down Clinton/Biden/etc., no matter their failings.)
posted by nobody at 8:33 PM on November 10 [8 favorites]
I think that's more universal than you're acknowledging. Like, why did Bernie Sanders lose the 2016 primary despite having the better policies (and, arguably, what could be seen as the more effective messaging), etc.
Now that I think of it -- and maybe my media bubble has just kept it from me -- there really does seem to be a dearth of discussion about what the left can do differently to finally win a Dem presidential primary for once. We're not even tempted to say Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren have only themselves to blame for failing to win over the primary electorate, are we? (I voted for both, and would vote for either again, in case it sounds otherwise, but it's also just not in my nature to have spent any of that time/energy, even during the primary, tearing down Clinton/Biden/etc., no matter their failings.)
posted by nobody at 8:33 PM on November 10 [8 favorites]
I think Harris probably ran too far to the right by her appearances with folks like Liz Cheney and I know Gaza hurt her in Michigan. Her policies may have been more left but she signaled right and that's something to consider.
That said, saying racism and particularly misogyny have nothing to do with it strikes me as at best naive. We gotta look at policy as a reason but the facts are plain: Trump couldn't beat a white man but he could beat a Black woman or a white woman. That's also pretty suggestive even if people won't come out and say it the way they will about Gaza and Liz Cheney.
I think this in part because here in Texas I watched Colin Allred run to the right and be all BIPARTISANSHIP and he lost by more than Beto did last time around running to the left. But I also think race was an issue there. And maybe one of the reasons Harris and Allred felt they had to run to the right was race, and gender in Harris' case. I'm no expert but I do know the feeling that I didn't get the job even though I did all the right things because I'm a woman.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 8:34 PM on November 10 [11 favorites]
That said, saying racism and particularly misogyny have nothing to do with it strikes me as at best naive. We gotta look at policy as a reason but the facts are plain: Trump couldn't beat a white man but he could beat a Black woman or a white woman. That's also pretty suggestive even if people won't come out and say it the way they will about Gaza and Liz Cheney.
I think this in part because here in Texas I watched Colin Allred run to the right and be all BIPARTISANSHIP and he lost by more than Beto did last time around running to the left. But I also think race was an issue there. And maybe one of the reasons Harris and Allred felt they had to run to the right was race, and gender in Harris' case. I'm no expert but I do know the feeling that I didn't get the job even though I did all the right things because I'm a woman.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 8:34 PM on November 10 [11 favorites]
So you only have to include those 40+ to get there, with no data to break it down further.
That's true... and also super annoying. I mean, when it comes to dating (and biology) there are huge differences between the 40-65 generational cohort and 65+. Heck, there are pretty big differences between 40-50 and 50-65!
Either way, I think there's enough ambiguity in there that the statment "the majority of single women have taken themselves off the dating market entirely" comes across as fairly misleading.
But again, this is a trend/opinion piece, so I'm not sure exactly how much critical thinking I'm supposed to apply here. It's kind of maybe a half step above the NYT Style Section in terms of credibility.
posted by panama joe at 8:40 PM on November 10
That's true... and also super annoying. I mean, when it comes to dating (and biology) there are huge differences between the 40-65 generational cohort and 65+. Heck, there are pretty big differences between 40-50 and 50-65!
Either way, I think there's enough ambiguity in there that the statment "the majority of single women have taken themselves off the dating market entirely" comes across as fairly misleading.
But again, this is a trend/opinion piece, so I'm not sure exactly how much critical thinking I'm supposed to apply here. It's kind of maybe a half step above the NYT Style Section in terms of credibility.
posted by panama joe at 8:40 PM on November 10
Either way, I think there's enough ambiguity in there that the statment "the majority of single women have taken themselves off the dating market entirely" comes across as fairly misleading.
I'm not sure how it's misleading? Unless you think older women somehow don't count, it's a statement that is true on its face even if younger single women were universally dating?
posted by Dysk at 8:54 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure how it's misleading? Unless you think older women somehow don't count, it's a statement that is true on its face even if younger single women were universally dating?
posted by Dysk at 8:54 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure how it's misleading?
Because it doesn't take into account how many men also "aren't looking" at the various age cohorts. She's clearly trying to make a point with that statement, but an examination of her "evidence" undermines that point.
posted by panama joe at 9:01 PM on November 10
Because it doesn't take into account how many men also "aren't looking" at the various age cohorts. She's clearly trying to make a point with that statement, but an examination of her "evidence" undermines that point.
posted by panama joe at 9:01 PM on November 10
But...how? Does it really seem easier to, in the next four years, solve racism and sexism than it would be to recalibrate the party line so it isn't "somewhere to the right of Mitt Romney?"
posted by kittens for breakfast
These are the right questions. But, at least in part due to being an outsider and not knowing the details and nuance of the situation on the ground, I do not have any answers.
(Not trying to dodge the questions. I really don't know.)
posted by Pouteria at 9:05 PM on November 10 [1 favorite]
posted by kittens for breakfast
These are the right questions. But, at least in part due to being an outsider and not knowing the details and nuance of the situation on the ground, I do not have any answers.
(Not trying to dodge the questions. I really don't know.)
posted by Pouteria at 9:05 PM on November 10 [1 favorite]
Because it doesn't take into account how many men also "aren't looking" at the various age cohorts. She's clearly trying to make a point with that statement, but an examination of her "evidence" undermines that point.
But she says 'a majority of women aren't dating' which is true - less than 50% of women are dating. The same is not true for men. Both are about a 2:1 ratio, just in opposite directions. So how is that undermining her point? Her statement is categorically true, and it applies specifically to women in a way that it doesn't to men.
posted by Dysk at 9:28 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
But she says 'a majority of women aren't dating' which is true - less than 50% of women are dating. The same is not true for men. Both are about a 2:1 ratio, just in opposite directions. So how is that undermining her point? Her statement is categorically true, and it applies specifically to women in a way that it doesn't to men.
posted by Dysk at 9:28 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
Misogynists and misandrists are a bunch of stupid babies. Anybody who voted for Trump has earned the hate of all decent people everywhere, but as soon as you're hating people based purely on their anatomy, on an accident of birth, you're part of the problem and you can fuck off.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 9:39 PM on November 10 [5 favorites]
posted by Ursula Hitler at 9:39 PM on November 10 [5 favorites]
So here's the full quote :
And while young men are in the midst of a loneliness epidemic—with more than 60% of them single—the majority of single women have taken themselves off the dating market entirely. In part, it’s because of how common it is to be harassed on dates.
I don't think this would have the same rhetorical heft if she also added, "The women who 'aren't looking' are clustered at an age range where biological changes make everybody less interested in dating, where many (possibly most) of the men also 'aren't looking', and where many of the men are generationally predisposed to chauvanism and other retrograde attitudes."
By glossing over age and generational cohort, her statement obscures more than it illuminates.
But again, this is a polemic we're talking about here. It's meant to rally the troops. I'm not sure this kind of critical thinking is super relevant here. I'm essentially bringing squeegee to a pillowfight.
posted by panama joe at 9:40 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
And while young men are in the midst of a loneliness epidemic—with more than 60% of them single—the majority of single women have taken themselves off the dating market entirely. In part, it’s because of how common it is to be harassed on dates.
I don't think this would have the same rhetorical heft if she also added, "The women who 'aren't looking' are clustered at an age range where biological changes make everybody less interested in dating, where many (possibly most) of the men also 'aren't looking', and where many of the men are generationally predisposed to chauvanism and other retrograde attitudes."
By glossing over age and generational cohort, her statement obscures more than it illuminates.
But again, this is a polemic we're talking about here. It's meant to rally the troops. I'm not sure this kind of critical thinking is super relevant here. I'm essentially bringing squeegee to a pillowfight.
posted by panama joe at 9:40 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
the 15 year-old and 50 year-old women in my life saying essentially the same thing, only slightly paraphrased: ugh, guys suck, I give up
This is a lifelong experience even without the election.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:19 PM on November 10 [10 favorites]
This is a lifelong experience even without the election.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:19 PM on November 10 [10 favorites]
With apologies to John Waters, if you go home with a man and discover he's a MAGA, don't fuck him.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:39 PM on November 10 [9 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:39 PM on November 10 [9 favorites]
My take on the US election.
The Republicans voted AGAINST their personal self interest (wage increases, union support, universal health care, etc.) to vote AGAINST the Democratic candidate. The Democrats voted AGAINST their personal self interest (tax cuts, immigration cuts, etc.) to vote FOR the Democratic candidate.
The people who are trying to help are being overwhelmed by the people who don't want help.
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 11:23 PM on November 10 [7 favorites]
The Republicans voted AGAINST their personal self interest (wage increases, union support, universal health care, etc.) to vote AGAINST the Democratic candidate. The Democrats voted AGAINST their personal self interest (tax cuts, immigration cuts, etc.) to vote FOR the Democratic candidate.
The people who are trying to help are being overwhelmed by the people who don't want help.
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 11:23 PM on November 10 [7 favorites]
I don't think this would have the same rhetorical heft if she also added, "The women who 'aren't looking' are clustered at an age range where biological changes make everybody less interested in dating, where many (possibly most) of the men also 'aren't looking', and where many of the men are generationally predisposed to chauvanism and other retrograde attitudes."
I don't know if it would have the same heft, but it wouldn't be supported by the data. Single men are looking in much mode similar same proportion across the two age buckets provided than us true for women. Women are also not looking in greater proportion than men in both age buckets.
Again though, I'm not understanding why women over 40 seem to not count, like it isn't a real effect unless it's affecting young women to a greater degree? "Single women" doesn't mean young, it doesn't mean nubile, it makes no statement about age. Older women are just as much women, and single women over 40 are just as much single women as those younger than them.
posted by Dysk at 12:34 AM on November 11 [6 favorites]
I don't know if it would have the same heft, but it wouldn't be supported by the data. Single men are looking in much mode similar same proportion across the two age buckets provided than us true for women. Women are also not looking in greater proportion than men in both age buckets.
Again though, I'm not understanding why women over 40 seem to not count, like it isn't a real effect unless it's affecting young women to a greater degree? "Single women" doesn't mean young, it doesn't mean nubile, it makes no statement about age. Older women are just as much women, and single women over 40 are just as much single women as those younger than them.
posted by Dysk at 12:34 AM on November 11 [6 favorites]
The Democrats voted AGAINST their personal self interest (tax cuts, immigration cuts, etc.) to vote FOR the Democratic candidate.
It takes a special kind of shallow, selfish, and narcissistic person to think that Republican policies about tax and immigration cuts are good for them. Trump's "tax cuts" are for the upper 1% and will be paid for with tariffs. We're all about to get fucked hard as what little progressive tax structure we have gets shifted further into regressive consumption tax. Even if I were facing tax cuts, taxes are the subscription we pay for society and we get what we pay for. Do we want a society of petty crimes of desperation that tries to jail its way out of the problem or a society that addresses basic human needs? I want rich people to pay a larger share because they have the most spare money just parked in passive income doing nothing for us and because I think making sure everyone is housed and fed is more important than vanity fucking rocket launches.
And immigration? Do you know how hard it is to get into the US? We take only the creamiest of the cream off the top of the emigration from other countries. Why would we deny ourselves such incredible people who are massive economic and societal multipliers? Even with illegal immigration, we end up with people who by and large who are escaping from shitty situations, want better lives and will work damn hard for it.
That's before all the self interest of not having my family and friends having less rights and more potential to be subject to abuse. My Black friends who face a racist police force taken off the tenuous leash and given carte blanche to "restore order" in a society where crime is at very low levels. My gay friends who face their marriages and lives being thrown into chaos. And finally my trans friends especially who are looking down the barrel of annihilation with this coming administration. It's very much in my self interest to not persecute them because I happen to like having them around very much.
So fuck off and miss me that Republican candidates are in my self interest like there's racial and gender solidarity in white politics. Almost every bad thing that's ever happened to me has been at the hands of a white man. The Republican candidates are all Christian nationalist fucks that would destroy everything, even US global hegemony so long as they can be feudal kings of the fucking rubble.
That's not in my self interest.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:41 AM on November 11 [25 favorites]
It takes a special kind of shallow, selfish, and narcissistic person to think that Republican policies about tax and immigration cuts are good for them. Trump's "tax cuts" are for the upper 1% and will be paid for with tariffs. We're all about to get fucked hard as what little progressive tax structure we have gets shifted further into regressive consumption tax. Even if I were facing tax cuts, taxes are the subscription we pay for society and we get what we pay for. Do we want a society of petty crimes of desperation that tries to jail its way out of the problem or a society that addresses basic human needs? I want rich people to pay a larger share because they have the most spare money just parked in passive income doing nothing for us and because I think making sure everyone is housed and fed is more important than vanity fucking rocket launches.
And immigration? Do you know how hard it is to get into the US? We take only the creamiest of the cream off the top of the emigration from other countries. Why would we deny ourselves such incredible people who are massive economic and societal multipliers? Even with illegal immigration, we end up with people who by and large who are escaping from shitty situations, want better lives and will work damn hard for it.
That's before all the self interest of not having my family and friends having less rights and more potential to be subject to abuse. My Black friends who face a racist police force taken off the tenuous leash and given carte blanche to "restore order" in a society where crime is at very low levels. My gay friends who face their marriages and lives being thrown into chaos. And finally my trans friends especially who are looking down the barrel of annihilation with this coming administration. It's very much in my self interest to not persecute them because I happen to like having them around very much.
So fuck off and miss me that Republican candidates are in my self interest like there's racial and gender solidarity in white politics. Almost every bad thing that's ever happened to me has been at the hands of a white man. The Republican candidates are all Christian nationalist fucks that would destroy everything, even US global hegemony so long as they can be feudal kings of the fucking rubble.
That's not in my self interest.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:41 AM on November 11 [25 favorites]
The Democrats voted AGAINST their personal self interest (tax cuts, immigration cuts, etc.)
To be clear, most Democratic voters would not benefit from Trump administration tax cuts and would experience a net economic loss (due in large part to inflation and various supply shocks and demand shocks) from reducing immigration and deporting existing immigrants. There is a litany of empirical study of the latter point, finding that even the most desperate categories of refugees are such a benefit to GDP (not to mention the tendency of immigrants to be more entrepreneurial and less criminally inclined than the US-born) that in the medium term they impose no net costs on the destination country.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 5:42 AM on November 11 [5 favorites]
To be clear, most Democratic voters would not benefit from Trump administration tax cuts and would experience a net economic loss (due in large part to inflation and various supply shocks and demand shocks) from reducing immigration and deporting existing immigrants. There is a litany of empirical study of the latter point, finding that even the most desperate categories of refugees are such a benefit to GDP (not to mention the tendency of immigrants to be more entrepreneurial and less criminally inclined than the US-born) that in the medium term they impose no net costs on the destination country.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 5:42 AM on November 11 [5 favorites]
With apologies to John Waters, if you go home with a man and discover he's a MAGA, don't fuck him
Additionally, and perhaps more importantly for your personal safety, if you think there is even a remote chance a man might be MAGA, do not got anywhere with him alone.
posted by thivaia at 5:55 AM on November 11 [15 favorites]
Additionally, and perhaps more importantly for your personal safety, if you think there is even a remote chance a man might be MAGA, do not got anywhere with him alone.
posted by thivaia at 5:55 AM on November 11 [15 favorites]
Tom "Families can be deported together" Homan is going to be border czar.
So good work there,Frogs for Snakes Latinos for Trump.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:09 AM on November 11 [3 favorites]
So good work there,
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:09 AM on November 11 [3 favorites]
Again though, I'm not understanding why women over 40 seem to not count, like it isn't a real effect unless it's affecting young women to a greater degree??
I'm not saying "women over 40 don't count". I'm saying that older people probably stop dating for different reasons than younger people. Also, the "over 40" thing is misleading. There's missing data here, and there's good reason to believe womens' dropoff in interest happens much later than 40.
posted by panama joe at 6:36 AM on November 11
I'm not saying "women over 40 don't count". I'm saying that older people probably stop dating for different reasons than younger people. Also, the "over 40" thing is misleading. There's missing data here, and there's good reason to believe womens' dropoff in interest happens much later than 40.
posted by panama joe at 6:36 AM on November 11
Yeah, unmarried women over 40 still seem pretty interested in dating to me. I'm not sure where this tangent is going, but I feel like it's not anyplace super useful. I think we should just acknowledge that women don't all sail away like Frodo at the end of Lord of the Rings on the last day of their thirties and circle back to the ostensible point of this conversation, whatever it was, I forget now.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:00 AM on November 11 [2 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:00 AM on November 11 [2 favorites]
This old white man who did not vote for the Orange Fascist welcomes this attitude.
Among young women, old women, everyone.
Radical pushback is the only thing that works.
posted by aiq at 8:11 AM on November 11 [1 favorite]
Among young women, old women, everyone.
Radical pushback is the only thing that works.
posted by aiq at 8:11 AM on November 11 [1 favorite]
I'm not saying "women over 40 don't count". I'm saying that older people probably stop dating for different reasons than younger people.
You keep saying "people" based on what seems like an assumption that it applies to men as well, but the data suggests otherwise. According to the data, women stop dating as they get older, men do not to any comparable degree, and the effect in people as a whole is driven by women. It really reads like you're rejecting the study and it's data because it disagrees with your assumptions.
posted by Dysk at 8:32 AM on November 11 [1 favorite]
You keep saying "people" based on what seems like an assumption that it applies to men as well, but the data suggests otherwise. According to the data, women stop dating as they get older, men do not to any comparable degree, and the effect in people as a whole is driven by women. It really reads like you're rejecting the study and it's data because it disagrees with your assumptions.
posted by Dysk at 8:32 AM on November 11 [1 favorite]
You keep saying "people" based on what seems like an assumption that it applies to men as well, but the data suggests otherwise
Incorrect. From the study :
Majorities of singles in the 18-to-29 and 30-to-49 age groups are interested in a relationship or dates, but that’s not the case for their older counterparts. Half of those ages 50 to 64 and three-quarters of those 65 and older are not looking for either a relationship or dates at the moment.
So yes. People. Both men and women become less interested in dating as they age. Possibly for different reasons.
posted by panama joe at 8:45 AM on November 11
Incorrect. From the study :
Majorities of singles in the 18-to-29 and 30-to-49 age groups are interested in a relationship or dates, but that’s not the case for their older counterparts. Half of those ages 50 to 64 and three-quarters of those 65 and older are not looking for either a relationship or dates at the moment.
So yes. People. Both men and women become less interested in dating as they age. Possibly for different reasons.
posted by panama joe at 8:45 AM on November 11
Having read a number of comments about people voting for or against their interest related to the candidates' policies, I don't really think that's a determining factor in how most people vote. A particularly eye-opening read on this point for me was The Sum of Us by Heather McGhee. My relevant takeaway was that in a hierarchical society like ours, every position is relatively the same except for the extremes, so there's a much stronger drive to be not-the-bottom, than there is to move up, since it's highly unlikely you'll be able to reach the very top. So, when white men towards the bottom of the socio-economoic ladder see support being extended to marginalized groups (even if that support benefits them as well), the threat of being surpassed and becoming the very bottom looms large. Seen in the lens of a zero-sum game (even though it isn't), the poor white man votes against his notional self interest in order to maintain superiority over poor women and people of color (and similarly for any other marginalized group).
posted by Cogito at 9:11 AM on November 11 [1 favorite]
posted by Cogito at 9:11 AM on November 11 [1 favorite]
This thread is absurd and is a perfect encapsulation to the point of self-parody of why the Democrats and liberals lost.
Thank you to tovarisch, nushustu, brook horse, Big Al 8000, kittens for breakfast, and others who tried to bring some sense into the discussion. It continues to astonish in this thread and previous ones that the very idea of introspection and analysis of possible failures in strategy or messaging or voter approach or, well, anything is met not just with indifference but open hostility.
There really does seem to be a certain segment of the left that literally can't break out of the "does not compute, racism and sexism" loop.
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:32 AM on November 11 [9 favorites]
Thank you to tovarisch, nushustu, brook horse, Big Al 8000, kittens for breakfast, and others who tried to bring some sense into the discussion. It continues to astonish in this thread and previous ones that the very idea of introspection and analysis of possible failures in strategy or messaging or voter approach or, well, anything is met not just with indifference but open hostility.
There really does seem to be a certain segment of the left that literally can't break out of the "does not compute, racism and sexism" loop.
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:32 AM on November 11 [9 favorites]
Angry dateless right wing men are a figment of the terminally online imagination. The vast majority of conservative men are married or otherwise partnered, in part because there is simply no shortage of women willing to date or marry conservative men (by preference for their politics, preference for the other qualities correlated to being conservative, or simple indifference). Indeed, exit polls show that married men voted for Trump much more than single men did.
Now angry dateless left-wing and politically disaffected men, maybe that's a thing - not sure how that shows up in exit poll cross-tabs.
posted by MattD at 9:45 AM on November 11 [1 favorite]
Now angry dateless left-wing and politically disaffected men, maybe that's a thing - not sure how that shows up in exit poll cross-tabs.
posted by MattD at 9:45 AM on November 11 [1 favorite]
Angry dateless right wing men are a figment of the terminally online imagination.
Ahh so I see someone has never had 112 of them flood his email with incoherent rants full of rape threats because you posted something about a soda tax.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:06 AM on November 11 [23 favorites]
Ahh so I see someone has never had 112 of them flood his email with incoherent rants full of rape threats because you posted something about a soda tax.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:06 AM on November 11 [23 favorites]
There really does seem to be a certain segment of the left that literally can't break out of the "does not compute, racism and sexism" loop.
Because in everything the Democratic effort did to win, the Trump campaign did literally nothing. No coherent messaging among surrogates. No ground game. Barely any advertising in swing states. Trump was only doing vanity rallies to flatter his ego. During them he was incoherent. He was vulgar. He was mindlessly and silently swaying to music for minutes at a time. They still fucking won.
Everything the Ds did was absolutely fucking irrelevant because Rs coasted to victory not just by doing nothing but while being actively terrible people. People who want to think Ds ran a poor election just don't want to believe that Americans can be that racist, sexist, ignorant, and gullible but it turns out, yeah, they are. And we're all about to feel the wrath of their decision.
At some point we have to stop treating voters like five year olds, give them their agency, and admit to ourselves that a good proportion are shitty fucking people and they'll crawl over broken glass to harm people out of spite. Because it turns out a whole heap of them are like that. You can't just cram messaging right before the election and wonder whether another message or strategy would have worked. It's not a final exam. Republicans have been poisoning the electorate for decades. It's not going to reverse itself overnight or even over weeks or months. The work needs to be done by us white people between elections, instead of complaining that we didn't have the correct magic formula of how left or right the Democratic Party needed to lean for said election.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:06 AM on November 11 [34 favorites]
Because in everything the Democratic effort did to win, the Trump campaign did literally nothing. No coherent messaging among surrogates. No ground game. Barely any advertising in swing states. Trump was only doing vanity rallies to flatter his ego. During them he was incoherent. He was vulgar. He was mindlessly and silently swaying to music for minutes at a time. They still fucking won.
Everything the Ds did was absolutely fucking irrelevant because Rs coasted to victory not just by doing nothing but while being actively terrible people. People who want to think Ds ran a poor election just don't want to believe that Americans can be that racist, sexist, ignorant, and gullible but it turns out, yeah, they are. And we're all about to feel the wrath of their decision.
At some point we have to stop treating voters like five year olds, give them their agency, and admit to ourselves that a good proportion are shitty fucking people and they'll crawl over broken glass to harm people out of spite. Because it turns out a whole heap of them are like that. You can't just cram messaging right before the election and wonder whether another message or strategy would have worked. It's not a final exam. Republicans have been poisoning the electorate for decades. It's not going to reverse itself overnight or even over weeks or months. The work needs to be done by us white people between elections, instead of complaining that we didn't have the correct magic formula of how left or right the Democratic Party needed to lean for said election.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:06 AM on November 11 [34 favorites]
I mean, okay, but the democratic party leaned so right in this election. People who looked to Harris hoping for something different from Biden got assurances that the economy was really great (which it is, if you make $100k a year), photo ops with Liz Cheney, a big thumbs up to Netanyahu, etc. Why the fuck would anyone who wasn't terrified of the prospect of Donald Trump for president feel like they needed to vote for that?
There are three reasons why I am unwilling to accept the idea that Harris lost because of sexism and racism. The first is that this idea leaves us powerless. There is nothing we can do; it's just the way it is. The second is that this casts Americans in a light so grim that, if I did accept it, I'd just be done. If we really can't vote for a Black woman because she's a Black woman, fuck us. Who cares? We deserve Trump, or at least most of us deserve Trump, so who gives a shit what happens to this trash country. I'm not going to say that, so I just rule it out. Third, this idea removes responsibility from the democrats for the campaign they ran. And I think it was a weak campaign, I think they misread the room, and I'm not willing to let them off the hook.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:30 AM on November 11 [7 favorites]
There are three reasons why I am unwilling to accept the idea that Harris lost because of sexism and racism. The first is that this idea leaves us powerless. There is nothing we can do; it's just the way it is. The second is that this casts Americans in a light so grim that, if I did accept it, I'd just be done. If we really can't vote for a Black woman because she's a Black woman, fuck us. Who cares? We deserve Trump, or at least most of us deserve Trump, so who gives a shit what happens to this trash country. I'm not going to say that, so I just rule it out. Third, this idea removes responsibility from the democrats for the campaign they ran. And I think it was a weak campaign, I think they misread the room, and I'm not willing to let them off the hook.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:30 AM on November 11 [7 favorites]
People who want to think Ds ran a poor election just don't want to believe that Americans can be that racist, sexist, ignorant, and gullible but it turns out, yeah, they are. And we're all about to feel the wrath of their decision.
I don't think anybody (in good faith) really believes American's can't be racist or sexist. I think that what people are saying is that given that people are racist, sexist, ignorant and gullible that if you want to win you have to take these handicaps into account somehow and rather than just keep beating people up for being sexist or racist we've got to somehow overcome and hopefully transform these deficits. Voters are human and humans are fallible, but they are what we have to win elections. Berating voters for being fallible humans seems really dumb to me? So what can Democrats DO with the citizens they have (including the MASSIVE number of non-voters) that will win? Continuing to harp on someone's deficits IS NOT a viable path forward.
posted by flamk at 10:34 AM on November 11 [3 favorites]
I don't think anybody (in good faith) really believes American's can't be racist or sexist. I think that what people are saying is that given that people are racist, sexist, ignorant and gullible that if you want to win you have to take these handicaps into account somehow and rather than just keep beating people up for being sexist or racist we've got to somehow overcome and hopefully transform these deficits. Voters are human and humans are fallible, but they are what we have to win elections. Berating voters for being fallible humans seems really dumb to me? So what can Democrats DO with the citizens they have (including the MASSIVE number of non-voters) that will win? Continuing to harp on someone's deficits IS NOT a viable path forward.
posted by flamk at 10:34 AM on November 11 [3 favorites]
Why the fuck would anyone who wasn't terrified of the prospect of Donald Trump for president feel like they needed to vote for that?
I mean, 80% of Black men and 95% of Black women did. I’m sure it’s just an aberration. 🤔
There are three reasons why I am unwilling to accept the idea that Harris lost because of sexism and racism. The first is that this idea leaves us powerless. There is nothing we can do; it's just the way it is.
It doesn’t leave us powerless. It means that we can’t rely on politicians to do all the work of convincing the electorate. We need to fight in conflict against these people, not just advocate passively and hope people go along with us.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:53 AM on November 11 [9 favorites]
I mean, 80% of Black men and 95% of Black women did. I’m sure it’s just an aberration. 🤔
There are three reasons why I am unwilling to accept the idea that Harris lost because of sexism and racism. The first is that this idea leaves us powerless. There is nothing we can do; it's just the way it is.
It doesn’t leave us powerless. It means that we can’t rely on politicians to do all the work of convincing the electorate. We need to fight in conflict against these people, not just advocate passively and hope people go along with us.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:53 AM on November 11 [9 favorites]
People who want to think Ds ran a poor election just don't want to believe that Americans can be that racist, sexist, ignorant, and gullible but it turns out, yeah, they are.
Your Childhood Pet Rock
You have it exactly backwards: this is a comfort blanket for liberals/Democrats, being able to shrug your shoulders and say, "racism and sexism, whaddya gonna do?" and avoid thinking about themselves.
You talk about treating people like adults and acknowledging agency, that's exactly what it would require: taking responsibility and really analyzing why the election was lost. Why Dems lost swathes of voters in voting blocs that were reliably Democratic, especially non-white voters. The conclusion that none of it was anyone's fault it was going to happen no matter what is comforting but, frankly, stupid.
Your view of the electorate and politics is simply, fundamentally wrong, trying to cram everything into a few simplistic boxes and being constantly stymied when that proves wrong over and over. But because this is such a fundamental view it's almost impossible to try and see past it or consider alternatives.
posted by star gentle uterus at 10:56 AM on November 11 [13 favorites]
Your Childhood Pet Rock
You have it exactly backwards: this is a comfort blanket for liberals/Democrats, being able to shrug your shoulders and say, "racism and sexism, whaddya gonna do?" and avoid thinking about themselves.
You talk about treating people like adults and acknowledging agency, that's exactly what it would require: taking responsibility and really analyzing why the election was lost. Why Dems lost swathes of voters in voting blocs that were reliably Democratic, especially non-white voters. The conclusion that none of it was anyone's fault it was going to happen no matter what is comforting but, frankly, stupid.
Your view of the electorate and politics is simply, fundamentally wrong, trying to cram everything into a few simplistic boxes and being constantly stymied when that proves wrong over and over. But because this is such a fundamental view it's almost impossible to try and see past it or consider alternatives.
posted by star gentle uterus at 10:56 AM on November 11 [13 favorites]
Also, acting as if racism is something we just “can’t do anything about” is defeatist and lets white progressives off the hook for anti-racism work. Same for sexism. Even if it was 100% of the problem, we would need to be working to figure out how to change that.
posted by brook horse at 11:13 AM on November 11 [10 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 11:13 AM on November 11 [10 favorites]
Hard agree that berating anything is never a winning strategy. And transforming racism and sexism is slow, generational work. For me, step one is accepting that female and/or poc political candidates are not going to be able to defeat fascism. Shaming and berating will not defeat fascism. There's no need to harp on the racism/sexism - although denying and underplaying in the analysis phase it is foolish and blind. But putting up that kind of candidate only to let them be hurled off the glass cliff in an actual referendum on women's rights and dignity, any minority/underdog/vulnerable population's rights and dignity...I hate this but it was the first mistake.
(And if anyone is actually interested in talking about the linked content - what the young women who are supposedly radicalizing are doing is not berating. They are done. They are opting out of patriarchy in the individual ways they can. It won't become a broad movement, but allow these women to express their grief and rage over simply not mattering. My tiktok (and I assume it's the same on instagram) is full of women talking about famous female poisoners, deadly garden plants, self defense, 4B and shaving their heads to opt out of the exhausting, complicitous effort to please men. I will not roll my eyes at them.)
posted by kitcat at 11:16 AM on November 11 [8 favorites]
(And if anyone is actually interested in talking about the linked content - what the young women who are supposedly radicalizing are doing is not berating. They are done. They are opting out of patriarchy in the individual ways they can. It won't become a broad movement, but allow these women to express their grief and rage over simply not mattering. My tiktok (and I assume it's the same on instagram) is full of women talking about famous female poisoners, deadly garden plants, self defense, 4B and shaving their heads to opt out of the exhausting, complicitous effort to please men. I will not roll my eyes at them.)
posted by kitcat at 11:16 AM on November 11 [8 favorites]
It's been remarked, but the US is much easier to understand if you just assume 1/3 of the population are total fucking assholes and go from there. They aren't concentrated evenly, but there are a lot of them and they are selfish, unimaginative, irredeemable shits.
posted by aspersioncast at 3:09 PM on November 11 [3 favorites]
posted by aspersioncast at 3:09 PM on November 11 [3 favorites]
there really does seem to be a certain segment of the left that literally can't break out of the "does not compute, racism and sexism" loop.
Because in everything the Democratic effort did to win, the Trump campaign did literally nothing
How do people not understand that this is completely arse-backward? The Trump campaign started four years ago, poured a river of money into the campaign advertising bucket and never stopped sending their messages of hate directly into the hearts of people who are genuinely struggling in all sorts of ways because of the status quo. The Harris campaign began almost on the eve of the election and spent the whole time appealing to the mythical 'reasonable person' and telling everyone the economy (ie the status quo) is great when it clearly isn't for a whole lot of the population. People are not reasonable, they are ignorant, selfish and biased. Trump played to that, Harris chose to ignore it.
Left-wing political parties all over the world need to stop acting as if everyone thinks like them and start acting more like their opponents - say what you have to say to get elected, then you can do the good things. The high road leads in the wrong direction.
posted by dg at 3:12 PM on November 11 [11 favorites]
Because in everything the Democratic effort did to win, the Trump campaign did literally nothing
How do people not understand that this is completely arse-backward? The Trump campaign started four years ago, poured a river of money into the campaign advertising bucket and never stopped sending their messages of hate directly into the hearts of people who are genuinely struggling in all sorts of ways because of the status quo. The Harris campaign began almost on the eve of the election and spent the whole time appealing to the mythical 'reasonable person' and telling everyone the economy (ie the status quo) is great when it clearly isn't for a whole lot of the population. People are not reasonable, they are ignorant, selfish and biased. Trump played to that, Harris chose to ignore it.
Left-wing political parties all over the world need to stop acting as if everyone thinks like them and start acting more like their opponents - say what you have to say to get elected, then you can do the good things. The high road leads in the wrong direction.
posted by dg at 3:12 PM on November 11 [11 favorites]
Because in everything the Democratic effort did to win, the Trump campaign did literally nothing. No coherent messaging among surrogates. No ground game. Barely any advertising in swing states.
This is 100% wrong. Harris lost because of four things: macroeconomics, misogyny, messaging and right-wing media. The Trump campaign did *all kinds of work* but you and I didn't see it because we cannot bear to watch Fox, let alone all the even shittier right-wing channels, or "Christian" radio, or Sinclair stations, or fucking Tik Tok. They did a phenomenal job streamlining a message to younger people who are staggeringly media illiterate: Harris is a crazed Communist, and Trump is going to make groceries cheaper. I missed it entirely because I only consume Sensible News. This media blitz was absolutely uncountered by Team Blue except maayybe Harris going on that sex podcast for young women, don't remember its name.
Macroeconomics and messaging: incumbent parties have been slaughtered all over the world because prices went up. Harris and Biden did great work making the aftermath of the pandemic suck less, and never said a goddamn thing about it in the language younger and less educated people speak. They did all kinds of things for working-class people—there's some guy on Reddit who keeps track of it all, it's crazy—but we know nothing about it because there's some fucked-up thing about the Democrats that they're just incapable of tooting their own horns. Why is there not a left-of-center network of podcasts—NOT a leftIST network, because there already is that, and they're nothing but sneering assholes—that market this, and speak to these people in their own language about why Biden/Harris were on their side and Trump is fucking not? "Oh, but we went on MSNBC–" Nobody fucking cares, Susan.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 3:44 PM on November 11 [15 favorites]
This is 100% wrong. Harris lost because of four things: macroeconomics, misogyny, messaging and right-wing media. The Trump campaign did *all kinds of work* but you and I didn't see it because we cannot bear to watch Fox, let alone all the even shittier right-wing channels, or "Christian" radio, or Sinclair stations, or fucking Tik Tok. They did a phenomenal job streamlining a message to younger people who are staggeringly media illiterate: Harris is a crazed Communist, and Trump is going to make groceries cheaper. I missed it entirely because I only consume Sensible News. This media blitz was absolutely uncountered by Team Blue except maayybe Harris going on that sex podcast for young women, don't remember its name.
Macroeconomics and messaging: incumbent parties have been slaughtered all over the world because prices went up. Harris and Biden did great work making the aftermath of the pandemic suck less, and never said a goddamn thing about it in the language younger and less educated people speak. They did all kinds of things for working-class people—there's some guy on Reddit who keeps track of it all, it's crazy—but we know nothing about it because there's some fucked-up thing about the Democrats that they're just incapable of tooting their own horns. Why is there not a left-of-center network of podcasts—NOT a leftIST network, because there already is that, and they're nothing but sneering assholes—that market this, and speak to these people in their own language about why Biden/Harris were on their side and Trump is fucking not? "Oh, but we went on MSNBC–" Nobody fucking cares, Susan.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 3:44 PM on November 11 [15 favorites]
Any single explanation for what happened with Harris is insufficiently complicated to consider. All of the above and some we haven't considered.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 3:55 PM on November 11 [7 favorites]
posted by gentlyepigrams at 3:55 PM on November 11 [7 favorites]
People, have you considered that it can be BOTH?
Massive systemic racism and sexism combined with a bad economy and being right wing?
It's not as if that mutually exclusive. Hell, there's something for everyone and double the excuses! Liberal and leftist cis het white men can feel superior about her being right wing and ignore the racism and sexism that their reaction might reflect AND racists and sexists can also feel that the economy was bad!
It's both and, not either or.
And this article is 100% spot on for a certain subset of American women. It's not universal, there's plenty of Lauren Boebart and Laura Loomer types out there, but I know several women who are feeling exactly what Valenti describes and while I can't feel it like they do I feel a deep anger that's at least somewhat related.
Trump gave the PUA/MRA/Incel/whatever men who hate women permission to be nakedly misogynist and they're taking it and running with it. Note that it was not after Dobbs that the right wing men started saying "your body my choice", it was after Trump won. Having Trump as President gives them permission to be their worst selves and they are doing it.
And (many) women are righteously angry about that and there's STILL men out there whining that they can't get a date because politics.
posted by sotonohito at 6:32 PM on November 11 [8 favorites]
Massive systemic racism and sexism combined with a bad economy and being right wing?
It's not as if that mutually exclusive. Hell, there's something for everyone and double the excuses! Liberal and leftist cis het white men can feel superior about her being right wing and ignore the racism and sexism that their reaction might reflect AND racists and sexists can also feel that the economy was bad!
It's both and, not either or.
And this article is 100% spot on for a certain subset of American women. It's not universal, there's plenty of Lauren Boebart and Laura Loomer types out there, but I know several women who are feeling exactly what Valenti describes and while I can't feel it like they do I feel a deep anger that's at least somewhat related.
Trump gave the PUA/MRA/Incel/whatever men who hate women permission to be nakedly misogynist and they're taking it and running with it. Note that it was not after Dobbs that the right wing men started saying "your body my choice", it was after Trump won. Having Trump as President gives them permission to be their worst selves and they are doing it.
And (many) women are righteously angry about that and there's STILL men out there whining that they can't get a date because politics.
posted by sotonohito at 6:32 PM on November 11 [8 favorites]
It was the sexism that cost us the election. Also racism and some other stuff, but mainly the sexism.
Harris ran a slick, solid, even Obama-esque campaign, endorsed by all the cool celebs and everything, while Trump's campaign was a grim, absurd slog, a 24/7 shit-show. "Low information" voters weren't the problem. Everybody who voted for that fuckwad knew what they were getting. You couldn't not know that Trump was a very old, very weird guy who had been convicted of sexual assault and a shit-ton of felonies, who'd led an insurrection, etc. Trump was obviously not fit for office, he was un-electable. A tiny child could see it.
And Trump won anyway, because the Democrats ran a woman and America is just that fucked up about women. The lesson Democrats need to learn is to not run a woman for president until America finally grows the fuck up.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 7:13 PM on November 11 [6 favorites]
Harris ran a slick, solid, even Obama-esque campaign, endorsed by all the cool celebs and everything, while Trump's campaign was a grim, absurd slog, a 24/7 shit-show. "Low information" voters weren't the problem. Everybody who voted for that fuckwad knew what they were getting. You couldn't not know that Trump was a very old, very weird guy who had been convicted of sexual assault and a shit-ton of felonies, who'd led an insurrection, etc. Trump was obviously not fit for office, he was un-electable. A tiny child could see it.
And Trump won anyway, because the Democrats ran a woman and America is just that fucked up about women. The lesson Democrats need to learn is to not run a woman for president until America finally grows the fuck up.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 7:13 PM on November 11 [6 favorites]
So, never.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:58 PM on November 11 [3 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:58 PM on November 11 [3 favorites]
I think we're starting to get to the core of what the "Harris lost because of racism and sexism" claim is about. Like all the other explanations it's answering two seperate questions: who is morally responsible, and what should we do about it? It makes a solid attempt at providing a progressive explanation for the first one -- it's the voters' fault! And as liberals have discovered in the past ten years, the essence of antiracism is moral harangue.
But when we think about how this claim answers the second question, things get murkier. So the voters are racist and sexist... then apparently what the party has to do is get even more racist and sexist (than they were already), and simultaneously become more disdainful of voters (than they were already). And if that doesn't work, well I guess somehow that meant that the voters got even more racist and sexist over the last four years, and we still have too much faith in them! Nothing to be done about it than double down, triple down, build the death camps and act surprised and betrayed when they get used.
Both parties will continue to hemhorrage voters, and soon we will get the 30% turnout election, but until the crises of capital become totally unmanageable, the ruling class will not change.
posted by jy4m at 10:23 AM on November 12
But when we think about how this claim answers the second question, things get murkier. So the voters are racist and sexist... then apparently what the party has to do is get even more racist and sexist (than they were already), and simultaneously become more disdainful of voters (than they were already). And if that doesn't work, well I guess somehow that meant that the voters got even more racist and sexist over the last four years, and we still have too much faith in them! Nothing to be done about it than double down, triple down, build the death camps and act surprised and betrayed when they get used.
Both parties will continue to hemhorrage voters, and soon we will get the 30% turnout election, but until the crises of capital become totally unmanageable, the ruling class will not change.
posted by jy4m at 10:23 AM on November 12
then apparently what the party has to do is get even more racist and sexist (than they were already), and simultaneously become more disdainful of voters (than they were already)
I not seen anyone who agrees with your first paragraph come to this conclusion. Where is this idea coming from? It's bonkers.
posted by kitcat at 10:47 AM on November 12
I not seen anyone who agrees with your first paragraph come to this conclusion. Where is this idea coming from? It's bonkers.
posted by kitcat at 10:47 AM on November 12
It's the obvious implication (and what the party has done in the past, and what they absolutely will do in the future) and also if you want to scroll up a couple inches you can see someone saying that they should not run a woman. Not because a woman can't lead of course, no of course not, we're not sexist, but this is just such an evil fascist fallen world that we simply must strategically adopt a sexist policy as a matter of pragmatism.
posted by jy4m at 11:10 AM on November 12
posted by jy4m at 11:10 AM on November 12
Not running a woman (I said it too) is just a sad practical choice that has to be made. Making that choice does not equal embracing racism/sexism. I see some really striking differences along gender lines in people's responses when required to admit that sexism/misogyny played a major role here. I don't know what to make of it but what I see is a lot more men catastrophizing and saying some version of "it's impossible to combat this racism/sexism therefore I can't face this being a major reason the dems lost". I really think it's worth unpacking that. As a woman, I take some time to grieve, be angry, and move on to the practical. I don't stand for all female people but most of us are used to that pivot.
When it comes to "what should we do about this" I'm with outgrown_hobnail: the reasons the dems lost are macroeconomics, misogyny, messaging and right-wing media. A campaign can only touch the last two of those.
posted by kitcat at 11:47 AM on November 12 [3 favorites]
When it comes to "what should we do about this" I'm with outgrown_hobnail: the reasons the dems lost are macroeconomics, misogyny, messaging and right-wing media. A campaign can only touch the last two of those.
posted by kitcat at 11:47 AM on November 12 [3 favorites]
Okay! Good luck! Surely those nevertrump republicans in the suburbs will finally vote blue in 2028, as long as you can find the right white man to build the wall.
posted by jy4m at 12:13 PM on November 12
posted by jy4m at 12:13 PM on November 12
Wouldn't it make more sense to run women and candidates of color far more frequently, to get the voting public more used to the idea?
posted by mittens at 12:49 PM on November 12 [2 favorites]
posted by mittens at 12:49 PM on November 12 [2 favorites]
this is just such an evil fascist fallen world that we simply must strategically adopt a sexist policy as a matter of pragmatism.
I know you were saying that sarcastically, but... yup. Pretty much. America is a sexist fucking mess.
Wouldn't it make more sense to run women and candidates of color far more frequently, to get the voting public more used to the idea?
Women can be governors, senators, even Supreme Court justices. But it's just about impossible for a woman to become president, as this election shows. The Democrats ran a sane, qualified woman against a big orange rapist idiot who should be rotting in a cell right now, and the big orange rapist idiot won.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 5:29 PM on November 12 [3 favorites]
I know you were saying that sarcastically, but... yup. Pretty much. America is a sexist fucking mess.
Wouldn't it make more sense to run women and candidates of color far more frequently, to get the voting public more used to the idea?
Women can be governors, senators, even Supreme Court justices. But it's just about impossible for a woman to become president, as this election shows. The Democrats ran a sane, qualified woman against a big orange rapist idiot who should be rotting in a cell right now, and the big orange rapist idiot won.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 5:29 PM on November 12 [3 favorites]
The Democrats ran a fairly uninspiring candidate who did very little to distance herself from an unpopular incumbent, over the course of a very short campaign, up against someone who - while absolutely an idiot - has a prior for winning on the protest vote. And that's before we get into all the own goals of the Harris campaign.
This was not a best case scenario, and to suggest that we should give up on women candidates altogether based on this very flawed attempt is odious.
posted by Dysk at 12:43 AM on November 13 [2 favorites]
This was not a best case scenario, and to suggest that we should give up on women candidates altogether based on this very flawed attempt is odious.
posted by Dysk at 12:43 AM on November 13 [2 favorites]
This was not a best case scenario, and to suggest that we should give up on women candidates altogether based on this very flawed attempt is odious.
Harris may not have been inspiring to you, but people were flocking to her rallies for a reason. Harris was slick, while Trump was hollering gibberish about immigrants eating dogs and cats. Trump was pathetically shuffling around to tapes of the Village People, while Harris had Beyonce as her opening act. Harris was running against a monster who was on tape bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, who'd been convicted of sexual assault (and 34 felonies), who'd orchestrated an insurrection, et fucking cetera. If this wasn't the best case scenario for a woman to run for the presidency, it had to be damn close. And she still lost, because America is just that shitty.
I'm saying that, in this insanely sexist country, running a woman for president is virtually guaranteed to fail. I'm not saying that is a fair or decent thing, and I'd appreciate it if we could discuss these things without accusing each other of being "odious." FFS.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 2:12 AM on November 13 [9 favorites]
Harris may not have been inspiring to you, but people were flocking to her rallies for a reason. Harris was slick, while Trump was hollering gibberish about immigrants eating dogs and cats. Trump was pathetically shuffling around to tapes of the Village People, while Harris had Beyonce as her opening act. Harris was running against a monster who was on tape bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, who'd been convicted of sexual assault (and 34 felonies), who'd orchestrated an insurrection, et fucking cetera. If this wasn't the best case scenario for a woman to run for the presidency, it had to be damn close. And she still lost, because America is just that shitty.
I'm saying that, in this insanely sexist country, running a woman for president is virtually guaranteed to fail. I'm not saying that is a fair or decent thing, and I'd appreciate it if we could discuss these things without accusing each other of being "odious." FFS.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 2:12 AM on November 13 [9 favorites]
You're arguing for yet another glass ceiling. That is inherently an odious position.
Your take relies entirely on people responding to Trump's antics in the same way as you do. For whatever reason, he has a great degree of popularity with a lot of people, and a certain charisma. Harris's appeal was similarly limited to one section of the population. It's simply not true to say that Harris was an inspiring candidate and Trump was not. I mean, if you're speaking for yourself, sure, and I agree, with some reservations about Harris. But if you're speaking about the electorate as a whole, it's simply not true. For a lot of people, Trump was inspiring.
posted by Dysk at 2:34 AM on November 13 [3 favorites]
Your take relies entirely on people responding to Trump's antics in the same way as you do. For whatever reason, he has a great degree of popularity with a lot of people, and a certain charisma. Harris's appeal was similarly limited to one section of the population. It's simply not true to say that Harris was an inspiring candidate and Trump was not. I mean, if you're speaking for yourself, sure, and I agree, with some reservations about Harris. But if you're speaking about the electorate as a whole, it's simply not true. For a lot of people, Trump was inspiring.
posted by Dysk at 2:34 AM on November 13 [3 favorites]
I am not "arguing for another glass ceiling." I am acknowledging that a particular glass ceiling already exists. In any case, I'm not interested in getting into some BS flamewar with you. I'll just say that I think your use of the word "odious" here is rather odious itself, and I'm out.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 3:10 AM on November 13 [4 favorites]
posted by Ursula Hitler at 3:10 AM on November 13 [4 favorites]
Mod note: One deleted. Please remember that these threads are meant to be for everyone, the back and forth debate is taking up substantial space from the thread
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 6:34 AM on November 13 [1 favorite]
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 6:34 AM on November 13 [1 favorite]
Harris was deeply inspiring for millions. It's insulting to say otherwise. That DJT inspired people too is fine but stop stating things like "fairly uninspiring" like they are fact because it's ridiculous.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:41 AM on November 13 [7 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:41 AM on November 13 [7 favorites]
Kamala kicked ass for being put in the ridiculous position of running a presidential campaign in three months. She and Tim were both tireless on the campaign trail. It's so easy to pick out all the faults in this campaign, but most of those reasons existed no matter who was running. imo the biggest mistake was fucking Biden deciding to run a second term (not to mention his apparently unwavering support of genocide).
Trump has been campaigning for 10 years, with lots of help from Russia and other bad actors.*
The Republican misinformation machine and networks have been ramping up/operating longer than that.
Trump won just over a third of voters. Kamala won just under a third of voters. And the final third just sat out. I do not believe a majority of the U.S. population is racist, misogynist nationalists - maybe not even a full third. What I can believe is many are low-information voters, or don't believe Trump means what he says, or are just overcome with stress, exhaustion and financial problems - and they didn't think it made any difference who won.
*Impressive example of bullshit: This American Life spoke to people on both sides after the election. They found a Puerto Rican man who was enraged by the comment about the floating island of garbage thing.
Then he went online and found out that this was actually some kind of coded message referring to the fact the Democrats won't let Puerto Rico get rid of their garbage. That's right. It's not that they hate Puerto Rico! It's because the Democrats have forced them to keep their garbage. How the TAL interviewer kept from screaming or crying, I don't know.
posted by Glinn at 6:54 AM on November 13 [6 favorites]
Trump has been campaigning for 10 years, with lots of help from Russia and other bad actors.*
The Republican misinformation machine and networks have been ramping up/operating longer than that.
Trump won just over a third of voters. Kamala won just under a third of voters. And the final third just sat out. I do not believe a majority of the U.S. population is racist, misogynist nationalists - maybe not even a full third. What I can believe is many are low-information voters, or don't believe Trump means what he says, or are just overcome with stress, exhaustion and financial problems - and they didn't think it made any difference who won.
*Impressive example of bullshit: This American Life spoke to people on both sides after the election. They found a Puerto Rican man who was enraged by the comment about the floating island of garbage thing.
Then he went online and found out that this was actually some kind of coded message referring to the fact the Democrats won't let Puerto Rico get rid of their garbage. That's right. It's not that they hate Puerto Rico! It's because the Democrats have forced them to keep their garbage. How the TAL interviewer kept from screaming or crying, I don't know.
posted by Glinn at 6:54 AM on November 13 [6 favorites]
The low turnout points to neither candidate getting hugely inspiring to a lot of the electorate. They both had their supporters, sure, but it's not like the Harris campaign was the model campaign against the least electable nobody ever. This is hardly definitive evidence that misogyny is the whole picture. Part of it, sure, but it's not a strong enough case to throw up our hands and preemptively give in to the misogynists we imagine the voting population of the US to be, by giving up on women, by putting a limit on what we think can be achieved by women, by actively participating in and promulgating a system that denies women opportunities.
posted by Dysk at 8:00 AM on November 13 [1 favorite]
posted by Dysk at 8:00 AM on November 13 [1 favorite]
by giving up on women, by putting a limit on what we think can be achieved by women, by actively participating in and promulgating a system that denies women opportunities
No one has said that's what we should do.
I do not believe a majority of the U.S. population is racist, misogynist nationalists - maybe not even a full third.
From the current vote count, 50% of the voters chose the racist, misogynist nationalist with the racist, misogynist, nationalist policies. And that's just people who bothered to vote. How do you square that? Would you those people to self-identify as racists and misogynists? I just don't understand.
posted by kitcat at 9:08 AM on November 13 [3 favorites]
No one has said that's what we should do.
I do not believe a majority of the U.S. population is racist, misogynist nationalists - maybe not even a full third.
From the current vote count, 50% of the voters chose the racist, misogynist nationalist with the racist, misogynist, nationalist policies. And that's just people who bothered to vote. How do you square that? Would you those people to self-identify as racists and misogynists? I just don't understand.
posted by kitcat at 9:08 AM on November 13 [3 favorites]
Women are able to get elected to top positions in other Western countries (and non-Western, I'm just looking for comparisons with the US). If a woman cannot be elected president, what is different here?
posted by eruonna at 9:14 AM on November 13 [1 favorite]
posted by eruonna at 9:14 AM on November 13 [1 favorite]
No one has said that's what we should do.
People in this thread have said it's what we should do, unless you think "The lesson Democrats need to learn is to not run a woman for president" means something very different to what I think it means.
posted by Dysk at 9:16 AM on November 13 [1 favorite]
People in this thread have said it's what we should do, unless you think "The lesson Democrats need to learn is to not run a woman for president" means something very different to what I think it means.
posted by Dysk at 9:16 AM on November 13 [1 favorite]
My opinion is: The lesson Democrats need to learn is to not run a woman for president in this present but temporary climate of right-wing fascism, while the consequences of losing are simply too high.
Who are the stakes highest for in the US right now? It's women. So while this is a real shitty option, it's pragmatic and it's the less shitty option.
posted by kitcat at 10:05 AM on November 13 [4 favorites]
Who are the stakes highest for in the US right now? It's women. So while this is a real shitty option, it's pragmatic and it's the less shitty option.
posted by kitcat at 10:05 AM on November 13 [4 favorites]
Is there a thread to discuss the horrorshow of cabinet position nominees and new made up positions that we're hearing about, or is the back and forth here all we're gonna focus on for US politics at the moment?
posted by TwoStride at 11:21 AM on November 13
posted by TwoStride at 11:21 AM on November 13
What's there to discuss? He'll find the worst people he can find who are the dumbest and able to cause the most damage.
I have to concur with kitcat: this nation can't stand a woman in charge, for whatever reason. I'll never see a female president in my lifetime.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:11 PM on November 13 [1 favorite]
I have to concur with kitcat: this nation can't stand a woman in charge, for whatever reason. I'll never see a female president in my lifetime.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:11 PM on November 13 [1 favorite]
Well, confirming that this is the worst timeline is just been announced that the Republicans will have the House next session too. A trifecta for Trump.
The only obstacles are Republican infighting and the Democrats filibustering everything in the Senate.
Bets that new Majority Leader Thune will scrap the filibuster? Not that he'll have to, the Democrats will be filled with bipartisan spirit and would never do anything so rude as blanket filibuster everything like the Republicans did.
He won't even need to go overboard on executive power, though he will.
posted by sotonohito at 12:17 PM on November 13 [1 favorite]
The only obstacles are Republican infighting and the Democrats filibustering everything in the Senate.
Bets that new Majority Leader Thune will scrap the filibuster? Not that he'll have to, the Democrats will be filled with bipartisan spirit and would never do anything so rude as blanket filibuster everything like the Republicans did.
He won't even need to go overboard on executive power, though he will.
posted by sotonohito at 12:17 PM on November 13 [1 favorite]
Matt Gaetz is Trump's pick for next Attorney General. I can't even. The guy who was investigated for sex-trafficking underage girls and was credibly alleged to having sexually harassed white house staff, is going to be the chief law enforcement officer.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 12:49 PM on November 13 [2 favorites]
posted by inflatablekiwi at 12:49 PM on November 13 [2 favorites]
Is there a thread to discuss the horrorshow of cabinet position nominees?
Someone could make one.
posted by box at 1:00 PM on November 13 [1 favorite]
Someone could make one.
posted by box at 1:00 PM on November 13 [1 favorite]
« Older Our Cockroach Era | People will travel more often and travel longer... Newer »
This is basically it in a nutshell. The reactionary white male is driven by the fact that they can't/won't be able to fail upward anymore because they're not the societal default. They're terrified of actually having to compete and that they wont measure up. Because they know they're weak. Because a real man would recognize the situation and adapt to the new world we all want, rather than becoming an incel crybaby unable to find a wife without her being forced into marriage by the threat of societal unpersoning.
Trump was these reactionary betas and their well placed in the hierarchy "pick mes" saying no matter how good a woman, or Black woman ,you put up for the job, we will elect the worst possible white man over giving you a seat at the table.
I'm done not rocking the boat. I'm done being civil. These people aren't to be reasoned with. Their ideas are toxic and poisonous. Even in their "victory" we need to deny them the respect and legitimacy they crave like political heroin. The first chink in the armor was Walz calling them weird. It was the one thing that riled them up. My fellow white people who want to fix this mess, our job is to defend multiculturalism and the people it has brought to us whether said people are inside or outside earshot. Defend them zealously even if it makes everyone at the table/meeting/party uncomfortable. Chosen kin is real kin. And every time one of these hateful white supremacist patriarchal assholes are encountered in the wild the only thing we need be asking them right before ostracizing them is "why are you so fucking weird?"
Mock and deride these motherfuckers. They think they have power? Congrats. I hope you get everything you voted for. You're still a fuckstick and even if you have all the power you could ever want, you will never have my respect and your ideas and conduct will never have my acceptance. Because I can still damn well deny you the only thing you crave.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:44 AM on November 10 [103 favorites]