New at Tusk: I dig into the question of whether Kamala Harris lost because she's a woman, and suggest it's irresponsible to push this argument unless we're *really* confident in the evidence.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I agree but I’ll add that the analysis of misogyny has to be central in any analysis of the election considering the VP elect came out swinging saying “women shouldn’t vote” and then doubled down on that. The misogyny of the election is actually scarier than “she lost because she’s a woman.”
You are asking for verification that patriarchy, misogyny and racism still exists in the US? *sigh* While there were other reasons the Dems lost, the fact that 76M Americans will vote for a convicted felon pervert should be an answer for you.
Thanks for the insight-much appreciated. YS is founded & owned by a female publisher. There has been no shortage of fighting twice as hard to prove validity as a businessperson. In the early days the magazine was treated like a cute hobby by male peers.
I have been having this argument for days now because it really risks masking the many many other reasons both that Dems actively lost and Republicans actively won. It may well be a factor but it certainly isn't the whole story
Curious question: Harris received about 7 million fewer votes than Biden. Trump won almost 3m more, and more than 3m apparently stayed home.
Without data on Biden-Trump or Trump-Harris switchers, just figuring out why the 3 million changed (0r were new) and the rest didn't vote would be crucial.
Comments
To claim we don't have conclusive evidence of this requires an optimism I struggle to consider remotely justified.
Without data on Biden-Trump or Trump-Harris switchers, just figuring out why the 3 million changed (0r were new) and the rest didn't vote would be crucial.