What did in Elizabeth Warren?


Elizabeth Warren’s withdrawal from the Democratic Presidential race wasn’t surprising. After all, she hadn’t won a single state after Super Tuesday, and she finished third even in her own home state of Massachusetts—a real embarrassment.  It’s clear why she withdrew, as by Thursday she didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the nomination, so why waste the money and effort?

But there’s no shortage of theories about why she didn’t succeed.  I know why I bailed on her when I voted on Wednesday, even though she was once my favorite candidate. As I said a few days ago, I lost some enthusiasm for her as the campaign proceeded as she seemed slippery (as did Bernie, at least about his healthcare funding!). Still, I would have voted for her in the Illinois primaries, but that became a moot point after Super Tuesday and the race narrowed to Sanders vs. Biden. I then voted for whom I saw as the most “electable” candidate, Biden. (Yes, I know earlier polls showed that both The Bern and Uncle Joe could beat Trump, but I believe that’s changed.) Some people say “electability” is a useless thing to consider (see the Atlantic piece highlighted below), but I don’t think so—not when our task as Democrats is to get Trump’s tuchas out of the Oval Office.

One of the most common explanations for Warren’s failure to succeed was sexism: she was a woman, and that pushed her down in voters’ estimation. While I’m sure that there were sexists who didn’t vote for Warren because she was a woman, just as there were similar sexists who didn’t vote for Hillary in 2016, I don’t think that sexism is the most important explanation for Warren’s poor showing among Democrats. As I wrote yesterday (and have added a link):

In today’s news, everyone is still recovering, happy or sad, about Uncle Joe’s big Super Duper Tuesday win. Those who are sad include several editorial writers, including Megan Garber at The Atlantic, Gail Collins at the NYT,  Michelle Cottle at the NYT, Joan Vennochi at the Boston GlobeAmanda Terkel at HuffPostand Emily Peck at HuffPost, all of them seeming to take Biden’s victory as a sign of prejudice against women: the continuing hegemony of “old white men”. (It’s okay to talk like this if you’re a feminist.) As Peck wrote, “Still, the 2020 race right now does feel like a letdown for anyone who cares about electing women.”

But this doesn’t wash. It neglects the fact that the Democratic candidate in 2016 was a woman, and one who won the popular vote, and that in this year’s race there were several good women candidates, including Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. Those women have dropped by the wayside because the voters—voters of both sexes—weren’t keen on them. It is largely women, and African-American women in some states, who went for Biden. If the persistence of Bernie and Biden reflects misogyny, it’s a misogyny that afflicts women as well as men. The Biden victory in Massachusetts, in the end, was a vote about which candidate was perceived by voters to be more liable to defeat the odious Trump, not a referendum on the candidates’ number of X chromosomes. After all Massachusetts elected Warren to be their Senator, but voted her a dismal third in the Presidential race, with only 24% of Massachusetts women voting for her. I don’t think this reflects a view of voters that Warren was qualified to be a Senator but not a President.

Yes, it’s high time for a woman president. But defeating Trump is more important right now than ensuring that the nominee is Elizabeth Warren. I am hoping that the Democratic nominee, who may serve only one term, chooses a woman as his running mate.

At any rate, the Atlantic, while publishing one article blaming sexism in the media and among voters on Warren’s poor showing (Garber’s piece linked above), also has an article by Elaine Godfrey interviewing five political pundits, each offering a different explanation for Warren’s dismal showing. But in the end, most of their explanations came down to her stand (and her waffling) on Medicare for All, and its failure to secure for her a “lane” that was recognizably different from the views of both centrists and from Sanders.

Click on the screenshot to read the piece:

I’ll just give the names of the pundits and summarize their “theories”, which are theirs. Quotes from the piece are indented; my own take or summary is flush left:

1. She couldn’t pick a lane—a problem symbolized by her positioning on Medicare for All. James Carville, a Democratic consultant and campaign strategist for former President Bill Clinton:

I’ll quote Carville at length. While some readers here have dismissed him as old and out of touch, I happen to think he’s savvy and makes sense. Carville:

Her bio is not good—it’s stunning. Her overall critique of the country was, There’s corruption and it’s just everywhere. She had the right critique. She had a base: She really excites educated women, for good reason. They like a story—a girl from Oklahoma, the single mother; geez, you couldn’t make this up in Hollywood.

She was cruising along pretty good, and then she got kind of wrapped up in it. It sure seems to me like her troubles started with Medicare for All. She was very clear: I’m a capitalist, not a socialist, but then she did Medicare for All and got lumped in with Bernie. That seemed to be, as Churchill would say, the beginning of the end. When she [announced her support for it], I just flinched, like, Oh, come on! ’Cause you’re never gonna get out of it!

Bernie had the hard left locked down. I interviewed [the Iowa pollster] Ann Selzer in September, and she made the point that Warren was the second choice of a lot more Pete Buttigieg [and] Biden voters at the time than Sanders voters. But [Warren] made a decision to be on the Bernie side of the equation. If she would have just [positioned herself] a little to the left of Buttigieg or Biden, she would have had more votes available to her. She should have just been a liberal and not a leftist. The original answer should have been, “We’re going to aggressively pursue a public option and expand Obamacare, and then in three years, we’ll see where we are.”

This comports with Warren’s own take in today’s Boston Globe:

She explained her losses on Super Tuesday, including in her home state, with a humility that is in distressingly short supply these days — especially in politics, where giant egos and blind certainty pass for campaign platforms. She was told there were only two lanes to run in, she said, a moderate one already occupied by former vice president Joe Biden, and a progressive one claimed by Senator Bernie Sanders, with no room for another way. She thought she could carve out another.

“Evidently, I was wrong,’’ she said.

She waffled a bit when asked whether sexism could play a role:

“You know, that is the trap question for every woman,’’ she said. “If you say, ‘Yeah, there was sexism in this race,’ everyone says, ‘Whiner.’ And if you say no … about a bazillion women think, ‘What planet do you live on?’ ’’

I’m not going to guess what she really thinks about sexism, because I don’t know. She’s been a great Senator, and may she continue on for many years—or even take a VP slot that will vault her into the Oval Office. If I could wave a wand and have any candidate in the White House, it would probably be Warren, though I worry that her election wouldn’t turn the Senate Democratic—the same worry I had with Sanders. She wasn’t perfect, but she was more perfect than the other candidates (except, perhaps, for Mayor Pete, who had less experience).

2. She was hit by the curse of the front-runner: She peaked too early and never recovered. Joe Trippi, the campaign manager for the former presidential candidate Howard Dean.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, as you can peak early and still retain the lead. It’s not a horse race in which there’s a finite amount of stamina per horse.

3. It was the scourge of electability: Warren was seen as a risky choice. Amy Walter, a political analyst and the national editor for The Cook Political Report.

But why was she “risky”? According to Walter, it was mainly her backing off on Medicare for All, which made voters question whether she was electable because she might be seen as too far on the Left. Walter says that the “idea of electability” is “a really fungible one”, but doesn’t explain why it’s damaging. To me, electability should be a huge factor in deciding how to vote when our main goal is to unseat a dangerous President with a Democrat—any available Democratic candidate.

4. Blame The New York Times/Siena College poll that showed President Donald Trump beating Warren in head-to-head matchups in several key swing states. Dave Wasserman, an elections analyst and the U.S. House editor for The Cook Political Report:

Again, Wasserman thinks that Democrats are overly obsessed with electability, and a poll in the NYT would, she said, scare readers of the paper, who just happen to be liberal, college-educated white people. That would, he surmises, turn them away from Warren.  Wasserman also argues that Warren’s waffling on Medicare for All would “rob her off some of the purity that Sander possesses, and it might have dented the perception that she knows exactly what she wants to do. It might have been an acknowledgment that her initial [Medicare for All] plan [was] problematic to sell to a general electorate.”  I don’t mind people changing their minds: some malleability in a politician is a good thing. But she changed her mind, I think, based on the realization that her stand might not get her elected.

Finally, there is sexism:

5. It all comes back to sexism. Jess McIntosh, a former deputy communications director of Emily’s List and a senior communications adviser for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. 

Here’s what McIntosh says:

The biggest issue this year is the double standard, where we hold women candidates to different standards than we hold the men. It’s very clear from the Medicare for All conversation that we expected and demanded more of [Warren] than we did the male candidates, and it hurt her. That was happening right as she was rising. As late as [last] week, Bernie Sanders [was] sayingI still can’t tell you every nickel and dime [about how to pay for his Medicare for All plan], and everybody’s like, All right. Well, you know, it’s about priorities. I’m not saying we should treat Bernie Sanders differently. I’m saying we should treat Elizabeth Warren the same.

She either outright won all [the debates] or performed really well. But you didn’t see wall-to-wall coverage the next day of what that would mean for her campaign and whether the momentum was going to come in. Where she had victories, they were not celebrated as loudly as the men[’s] were, and where she had defeats, it was seen as an inevitable character flaw as opposed to a bump in the road.

McIntosh says more, but you can read and judge for yourself.

I guess I think that had Warren been a real contender after Super Tuesday, I would have voted for her. Even when I was about to black in the “Biden” oval on my write-in ballot on Wednesday, my hand hesitated and thought about moving to Warren. But even then it was too late for her. I’m sure she would have been a better President than Biden. But would she have been able to bring the House with her and flip the Senate, as Biden might? Who knows. We all do the best we can, and the theories are just that—theories. All that matters is the electoral vote, and that’s several months away. It’s incumbent on us, whichever candidate survives to win the nomination, to coalesce around him (or her, though that seems increasingly unlikely), and promote them as strongly as we can.

h/t: Tim


  1. Posted March 6, 2020 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    My opinion: her embracing “wokeness” didn’t help.

    For example, she insisted on using the term Latinx which is NOT popular in the community; it is common among “activists” and academics.

    Part of it is that being an elite scholar (which she is) requires a different skill set than being a successful politician.
    Winning votes was not a skill she had.

    Note that she ranked in the bottom 10 among Senators when it came to constituent approval. (per Morning Consult)

    • Posted March 6, 2020 at 10:38 am | Permalink

      She seemed to campaign toward the “advanced degree/NPR listener” demographic and that is just too narrow of a slice.

    • Filippo
      Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

      “Winning votes was not a skill she had.”

      I take it that entails, in part, schmoozing with, and otherwise stroking the egos of, those who presume to impose that requirement on candidates.

      I have a perception of those who are rubbed the wrong way by anyone with scholarly, academic leanings. I’ve read elsewhere that some think her too professorial. (That was hurled at Obama. Maureen Dowd found it hard to leave that locution alone. Apparently she, and a great host of other USers, require candidates and political leaders to “entertain” them.)

      • Posted March 6, 2020 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

        to me, the ability to win votes is, in part talent and in part, a skill. She just didn’t have the talent for it.

        Obama and Bill Clinton did.

  2. GBJames
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 10:41 am | Permalink


  3. Curtis
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    IMO, she spent to much time choosing the wrong way to become president rather than being herself. At one time, she was a liberal Republican but she gradually moved leftward as she became a politician. She had the combination of wonkiness and charisma. This was a possibly winning version.

    Then she leapt to the left trying to become an acceptable version of Sanders.
    1. The numbers don’t work. Wonkiness requires consistently adhering to a story and facts but her problems with M4A screwed her up.
    2. It denied her past denting her credibility e.g. putting her kids in private school while being anti private school.
    3. Sanders had the socialist vote sewn up.
    4. Trump’s Pocahontas attack made her look vulnerable and her DNA defense failed.

    I liked her 10 years ago but I am glad this version lost.

  4. pablo
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    I wanted her to run in 2016 and was looking forward to her running in 2020. What dampened my enthusiasm was her diisengeuineness, and her pandering to the woke. No candidate who pledges to decrimilize illegal immigration, and to let a nine year old trans kid vet her Secretary of education is going to win the general election.

    • Simon Hayward
      Posted March 6, 2020 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

      Yup. Also she’s just not that popular she has always underperformed in statewide elections where even an underperforming democrat can win. I’m not sure that translates nationally. Her record on the presidential trail is similar in some ways to Kamala Harris who was running away from a record that would have appealed to many in the center, because she was scared of the left wing of the party.

      Bernie’s real strength, in comparison, is that he has been on message for a long time and you can take it or leave it (he’s indifferent on that score), but at least you know what he stands for.

  5. Posted March 6, 2020 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Logical Place.

  6. Marina
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    I liked Warren but I do not think she exudes the uncomplicated empathy common voters appreciate (I think uncle Joe’s is fake but it may work, as, incredibly, Trump’s sick joviality attracts his fans). Then I agree with the 5 points quoted in the Atlantic, but ultimately I think pundits living on the East Coast or DC should study more of their small town, less educated fellow citizen to divine the future. Anyway, my candidate would have been Mayor Pete, with the right kind of advisors he could have been an interesting experiment.

    • Posted March 6, 2020 at 11:42 am | Permalink

      Yes, she ran too hard as a policy wonk (I’ve got a plan for that) when she should have tried harder to listen to and connect with voters.

  7. Posted March 6, 2020 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    To me her appeal vanished during the Pocahontas episode. I saw how easily Trump and his goons in the right wing media made fun of her, and thought she’ll never succeed against them. She did not come out on top.

    Contrast this with AOC, who is also a fixture in right wing media. Unlike Warren, AOC is savvy and mostly turns the table on the boorish, dirty-fighting opponents.

    The right often uses mockery and joking-not-joking tactics to belittle especially female candidates, and alas Warren’s dead serious and stuffy attitude doesn’t play well in our modern media landscape as a response.

    • Posted March 6, 2020 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

      I agree. AOC is NOT my cup of tea, but she does have that ..knack..political talent..or whatever.

  8. Mike Anderson
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    Warren turned me off because I thought she was full of it. She presented her plans as if they were relatively easy to accomplish, and IMO they were anything but that. That wealth tax would have been Civil War II and an economic minefield.

    These doubts fold into the electability argument as well.

    And I don’t buy the sexism rationale seeing as how the last female presidential candidate – with all of her well advertised flaws – won the people’s vote by almost 3 million in 2016.

    The simple fact (hiding in plain sight) is that the Democrat voters prefer a moderate.

    • Jon Gallant
      Posted March 6, 2020 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

      “That wealth tax would have been Civil War II and an economic minefield.” Somehow, wealth taxes of various kinds have been enacted in France, Spain, the Switzerland [epitome of Liberal Capitalism], the Netherlands, Italy, and even British Columbia in Canada. It is true that several other countries (Germany, Iceland, Denmark, Austria, Finland, Sweden) imposed wealth taxes and then abolished them, partly because of the complicated ways in which they were evaded.

      • Mike Anderson
        Posted March 6, 2020 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

        Yes, many countries are capable of doing things the USA isn’t.

        • KD
          Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

          Yes, most countries managed to end slavery without killing off 600,000 of their own citizens.

          • Filippo
            Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

            I suppose that that carnage qualifies as an example of “American Exceptionalism.”

          • Mike Anderson
            Posted March 6, 2020 at 5:01 pm | Permalink


        • EdwardM
          Posted March 6, 2020 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

          I suppose it needs to be said here; the obverse is true as well.

  9. Posted March 6, 2020 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    I think her main problem was her inability to give satisfactory answers to the questions of how to pay for her medicare plan. To me she came across as stubborn and argumentative. She did not have the ability to give coherent replies to show she was transparent, to handle numbers and debate in a reasonable manner. She had other problems with her standing on issues. I live in Georgia. Biden swept the southeast and is predicted to get all of our delegates. Not a lot if progressives live in this part of the country. Big government as touted by Warren and Sanders are not popular. Prople are almost anti government if anything at all.

  10. Tina
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    Like most candidates she stopped being sincere and said things just to win. But in a really unstrategic way. The whole American Indian thing didn’t help. To say it was sexism is ridiculous. Her base is liberal. If anything they’re more likely to vote for a woman just because that’s the woke thing to do. 🙄

  11. Doubting Thomas
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    I don’t doubt that sexism played a big part in her campaign, but it probably helped her. Lots of women probably voted for her just because she’s a woman. That is sexism in its purest form.

  12. Roo
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    I think the idea that this was going to be a binary contest between Sanders / Biden probably captures it pretty well. If I remember correctly, Warren did well compared to all other candidates except for them, after all, which would seem to support this idea.

    As for whether or not sexism played a role – I think it’s important to distinguish between out and out “A woman can’t be President!” type sexism, and the more general role of gender in a given society. I don’t know if overt sexism played a big role in her numbers, I assume gender in general is at least somewhat detrimental to any female looking to be in a leadership role. Why that is, exactly, could be due to any number of related factors, but I think you have to factor in worse odds for a female from the beginning. That doesn’t mean they’re insurmountably bad in every case, but I think it’s almost always a factor.

    • Posted March 7, 2020 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

      I agree on both counts, and on the order in which you place them. First and foremost, as Carville and Warren herself say, the “lane” between Biden-type centrism and Bernie leftism is extremely narrow in terms of how many voters it represents. But secondarily, sexism can be subtle and still hurt. Moreover, polls showing that Trump would beat Warren are taken among the general public, Republicans included. Democrats who read those polls are then influenced – even if very few of those Democrats have significant levels of sexism.

      • GBJames
        Posted March 7, 2020 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

        IMO, a greater problem for Warren was when three of the four woke women of The Squad endorsed Sanders over Warren and she (Warren) walked back from Medicare for All, progressives left her for Sanders.

  13. Posted March 6, 2020 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    As someone outside the US, she lost me in January 2016 when I saw her interviewed by Rachel Madow. She was just blabbing on about how inspiring the Women’s March was, and had clearly anaesthetised herself against feeling the emotional pain of the disaster which has befallen your country.

    Worst of all, she told a story which she thought was uplifting but was actually sickening and stupid: she asw a five year old girl riding on her father’s shoulders, holding a sign, scrawled in a child’s hand, that read “I fight like a girl”.

    Sorry, but five year old children are too young to take a reasoned position on political issues; too young to be confronted with a horrendous defeat that your country will not recover from in that child’s lifetime; and above all, too young to be confronting a sex offender and wannabe paedophile with access to nuclear weapons and the secret police. It’s indoctrination, and child abuse.

    I found the whole thing as symptomatic of the Left’s continuing failure to deal with Trump effectively.

  14. Ken Kukec
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    One of the most common explanations for Warren’s failure to succeed was sexism: she was a woman, and that pushed her down in voters’ estimation. While I’m sure that there were sexists who didn’t vote for Warren because she was a woman, just as there were similar sexists who didn’t vote for Hillary in 2016 …

    I don’t think the “sexism” involved is limited to an outright refusal to vote for a woman; it’s more insidious than that, having to do with the framework within which woman candidates are viewed and the standards to which they are held.

    Many people, for example, criticized Warren as being “schoolmarmish” or “hectoring” — when, hell, “hectoring” was essentially the key component to what was seen as Bernie Sanders’s gruff charm.

    Or take poor Amy Klobuchar, who, at least in terms of her public persona, is one of the most pleasant people on the national political scene, but was taken to task in the media for being something less than “Minnesota nice” to her campaign staff behind closed doors. A male candidate in that position would’ve been characterized as “tough” or “demanding”; Klobuchar was portrayed as some kind of Jekyll-and-harridan character.

    I’m not saying sexism was the key, much less the determinative, factor in the primary contest outcomes — hell, I wavered on Elizabeth Warren myself, and I like to flatter myself that it had nothing to do with her being a woman. But sexism WAS a factor, an ever-present one, even if it was often all but invisible, especially to us men.

    Still, people get ready, there’s a train a comin’, and one day soon it’s gonna take a woman to the Oval Office. Only question is, how long, O Lord, how long will the nation and the sisterhood havta wait to get to that promised land?

    • Posted March 6, 2020 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

      I totally agree. It is not a “I don’t want a woman President” type of sexism, but a subliminal double standard.

      • Marlene Zuk
        Posted March 6, 2020 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

        +1 — it’s very hard to explain just how insidious this kind of bias can be.

    • EdwardM
      Posted March 6, 2020 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

      While I think there may be some truth to the claim that the difference between the way male and female candidates are characterized is form of sexism, much of it amounts to so much truthiness. Sure you can find people who called Warren “schoolmarmish” but that may be an accurate description of her behavior, not a sexist one.

      Let me ask you this. Do you think calling Sanders or Biden “old white men” is an accurate description of them or is it dismissive sexist (and ageist) rhetoric?

      • Nicolaas Stempels
        Posted March 6, 2020 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

        Yes Ken, I think that is a big part of the explanation. I found Ms Warren ‘hectoring’ myself, until I asked myself whether I would have felt the same if she had been male. I think I would have not.

      • Posted March 6, 2020 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

        By any standard, Biden and Sanders are 1)Old, 2)White and 3)Male. There can be no dispute,, it is simply a statement of facts. Whether or not Warren is “schoolmarmish” is subjective and can readily be used to disparage rather make than accurate statement. Calling Warren schoolmarmish is the kind of tactic Trump might use.

        • GBJames
          Posted March 6, 2020 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

          They’re only male because of social construction. And age is only a number!


        • EdwardM
          Posted March 6, 2020 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

          So is it your contention that when someone says Biden and Sanders are “old white men” they mean in the same way when they say “the sky is blue” or “it’s sunny today”? It doesn’t mean “don’t vote for them because they’re old and, worst of all, white”?

          • Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

            Yes. But there may be valid reasons why such facts, say age, should be taken into consideration in evaluating their suitability for being president. Similarly, I might use age as a factor in choosing a heart surgeon.

            • Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

              I am quite willing to go on record as saying that, in my opinion, Sanders and Biden are too old to be effective presidents, whether that makes me “agist” or not. It is an entirely reasonable criterion for judging whether they are right for the job.

              • GBJames
                Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

                Well, I’m a pretty old guy and I agree. Both are too old. So is the Orange Menace. But in his case, age is the least of the problems.

            • EdwardM
              Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

              So a follow on, if Senator Warren was behaving in a prim and strict manner when discussing an issue that’s important to me and I say; “I don’t like the way she is speaking; it’s schoolmarmish”, is it possible I’m making an accurate statement about my perception of her? Or is it because I’m a sexist and I don’t think a woman should be president?

              I don’t think you need answer the questions directly – I don’t think you’re that thick. I asked it to make a rhetorical point; it’s easy to dismiss the failure of women in politics as a result of deep seated sexism (especially because it’s partly true) and there is no defense any man can make to it because it is assumed.

              So be it. I am, after all, an old white man and as we should all know by now, that’s the very worst anyone can be.

              • Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

                Yes, I think that perceptions of attributes such as being “prim” or “strict” may well reflect one’s underlying prejudices. It is equivalent to saying “Warren reminds me of my third grade school teacher, who I did not like, therefore I won’t vote for Warren.”

              • EdwardM
                Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

                You prove my point. BTW, my third grade teacher was a man. Really. He wasn’t schoolmarmish but he WAS a bastard, a real prick. But no matter, adjectives founded on sex differences and used to describe behavior are only negative if they refer to women. For men they are always spot on and not at all based on underlying prejudices.

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted March 6, 2020 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

                I think there are prejudiced for men too just different ones. For instance Trudeau has been criticized for being emotional (crying) and sitting in a way that people think is effeminate. I shit you not. It’s why I see Trudeau as an honorary woman because he gets criticized for how he looks all the time. But those biases against him are very much the ones men deal with. The thing is that they get to be all aggressive in politics because that’s what our culture values and that’s just not something we want for women. I’m right now realizing what has held me back often but screw it I am who I am and to be anyone else is depressing for me. Oh how I miss working with the men lately.

              • Posted March 6, 2020 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

                Is that why he grew a beard?

            • Filippo
              Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

              “Similarly, I might use age as a factor in choosing a heart surgeon.”

              Like, e.g., Michael DeBakey?

              • Posted March 6, 2020 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

                Well, my first criterion for a heart surgeon is that he or she is alive.🙂

              • Filippo
                Posted March 6, 2020 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

                Well, of course, back when he was alive, still professionally active and competent well into his 90’s. (But you knew that, I assume.)

                In future similar posts-ripostes, I will be sure to indulge in such prefatory, lawyerly throat-clearing. (;))

              • Posted March 6, 2020 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

                You’re the man, Filippo. Stay loose. I like your posts.

    • Historian
      Posted March 6, 2020 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

      Last night on MSNBC most of their shows were dedicated to dissecting why Warren decided to withdraw from the race. Rachel Maddow interviewed Warren for almost the entire hour. Several activist women were interviewed and the almost universal explanation was sexism. For these people, Warren was as good a candidate as Biden and Bernie, so she had to lose because of her sex. What these people did not explain is why Warren was crushed even though more than half the voters are women. They had to be reminded that Hillary got more votes than Trump in 2016 and that many Democratic women were elected to Congress in 2018. They could not entertain the possibility that Democratic women cast their votes based on policy issues and preferred Bernie or Biden’s positions better than Warren’s. However, the interviewees could have been correct in one respect. The Democratic women may have calculated that the men were more electable, which was their most important consideration, partially due to sexism against Warren. We know only for sure that Warren got crushed; the reasons why may never be fully understood.

      • GBJames
        Posted March 6, 2020 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

        “Democratic women may have calculated that the men were more electable, which was their most important consideration, partially due to sexism against Warren.”

        I think this may be key. I have friends, female, who I remember telling me this early in the process. Among them are women who are deeply bothered by Warren’s loss.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

          To an extent this seems to echo the initial resistance of many Roman Catholics — including Roman Catholics who ran big-city political machines — to John F. Kennedy’s 1960 presidential ambitions. Many of them had lived through the only prior presidential candidacy of a Catholic — Al Smith’s losing effort against Republican Herbert Hoover in 1928 — and had experienced first hand the severe anti-Catholic backlash it had engendered (as well as the way this backlash had hurt down-ticket Democrats, especially Catholic candidates running in local races).

          It wasn’t until Kennedy proved he could win primaries in states with predominantly protestant populations — most notably, West Virginia — that the Catholic big-city bosses got behind JFK’s candidacy. (In a similar vein, black political leaders — some of whom had initially come out in favor of Hillary Clinton — didn’t get behind Barack Obama’s 2008 run for the Democratic presidential nomination until he showed he could win with white voters in the Iowa caucuses.)

    • darrelle
      Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

      Completely agree. Well said.

    • Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

      I concur with you, Ken.
      I also think there might be a perception that a woman might have a (slighter?) harder time beating the bullying Agent Orange, since he’s already got the reins of power and a cabal of brainwashed supporters.

      • EdwardM
        Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

        GBH made this point below but it bears repeating; a woman already beat the orange menace.

        • EdwardM
          Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

          *sigh* GBJames not GBH.

        • Posted March 6, 2020 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

          Gotta win the electoral college though. Hillary would probably have done so, had it not been from the 11th hour Comey effect.

        • Posted March 6, 2020 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

          As Diana said elsewhere, it doesn’t seem the Dems want to *chance* losing to a virtual existential threat which is Agent Orange.

        • Posted March 7, 2020 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

          But you do know the term ‘Close enough but no cigar’? It’s that kind of thing I’m talking about(Hillary’s failed run for POTUS and Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment but acquittal of POSPOTUS.

          • Posted March 7, 2020 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

            I hasten to add that this doesn’t take away from the great accomplishments and advancements made by these fantastic women. Currently it’s just a step back, a pause to regroup if you will, and more women will be inspired to build on that in the years to come.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 6, 2020 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

        Definitely and what I’ve argued somewhere on here.

        • Posted March 7, 2020 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

          This seems to reflect the pragmatism and preparedness to compromise behind many female supporters’ decision to go for greater electability.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted March 7, 2020 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

            Yes and I’ve heard this expressed by black voters toward candidates as well.

  15. notsecurelyanchored
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Slightly off topic, but still on the election. As a former Census worker, who knows how suspicious the general public is of this historical endeavour, I am appalled by this: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-03-05/facebook-removes-misleading-trump-census-ads

    • Posted March 9, 2020 at 11:34 am | Permalink

      That’s pretty bad. In Canada there is legislation that makes impersonating the GoC (or a department of same) illegal. Does that exist in the US?

  16. Mark R.
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    I don’t always agree with Paul Krugman, but I think his explanation is as good as any.

    Replying to @paulkrugman
    But she also made one huge strategic mistake: she thought she could win over the Bernie crowd by going for Medicare for All. This was a break with her previous accumulation of medium-sized plans, and opened her for attack

    And it didn’t win over the Bernistas anyway, because they’re only partly about progressive policy; they want someone who channels their sense of grievance. Warren wasn’t their type precisely because of the thoughtfulness that attracted her supporters.

    • Filippo
      Posted March 6, 2020 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

      ” . . . the Bernistas . . . want someone who channels their sense of grievance.”

      I wonder who Krugman thinks worthy of having and pressing grievance(s).

      • Mark R.
        Posted March 6, 2020 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

        Good point, I suppose the Trump voters who still feel aggrieved are those; will coronavirus break a mindset? I live in WA, it’s crazy up here, no toilet paper in stores, no “purell” to be found, no nothing on the shelves when it comes to antiseptic or masks. A wild ride to be sure. Comicon cancelled, a 100,000 person economic event. America and the world is going to lose trillions. The consumer has gone home and perhaps the silver lining is an expose of Trump administration utter incompetence.

  17. eric
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Given that Democrats are going to share a lot of ideological similarities, I would hope the pundits are wrong in claiming that finding a different or unique “lane” is the only path to victory. I’d like to think that in a case of two candidates with similar ideologies, the voters can judge differential value on factors such as leadership ability, experience, and yes, pragmatic vote-getting.

    I think the main problem for all the more interesting candidates was, unfortunately, exactly that. Biden had center ideology plus executive experience plus vote-getting. Bernie had liberal ideology plus more outsiderness plus surprisingly good vote-getting in 2016.

    But hey, hindsight is 2020, right? A year ago we were all wondering if Kamala Harris was going to run away with it. 🙂 Clearly, there’s no single or few factors in play in an election that are so important that they make the outcome strongly or easily predictable.

  18. Diana MacPherson
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    Some of it may be sexism vs misogyny. I for one question whether the US would be ready for a female president. And if you’re going against Trump perhaps others also wondered if this wasn’t the best time to try that out.

    Also, I think she seemed to vacillate on things and change her mind too often with policies. The woke leaning and appealing to the Twitter crowd was a bit much…it made her look like she was more interested in appealing to trends than doing what was right.

    • GBJames
      Posted March 6, 2020 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

      “I for one question whether the US would be ready for a female president.”

      Why? Four years ago we nominated a woman candidate and she won the popular vote by a significant margin.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 6, 2020 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

        But over and over the democrat goal is to get Trump out of office. If that is put against the fact that on one has voted for a female president yet – it’s a risk that people won’t like it and Trump will win. I think some people did the math and I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of those people were women.

        • GBJames
          Posted March 6, 2020 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

          I don’t buy it. Sexism certainly still exists, but in general Americans have already demonstrated that we’re “ready for a female president”. We’re past that measure, vote-wise. That doesn’t mean that any woman in any context is going to win. Obviously not. There are many causes for Warren not winning. She was my favorite, but primary elections are complex, and this particular election is loaded with all sorts of entwined forces and counter-forces. Change some of those, and the results would have been different.

          I’m not into counter-factual, but imagine if Sanders’ heart attack had killed him. I expect that his supporters would all (or mostly all) have shifted to Warren. The story on Super Tuesday might have ended up very different.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted March 6, 2020 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

            But isn’t this election different? I dunno as a woman myself I tend to be practical about these things.

            • GBJames
              Posted March 6, 2020 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

              All elections are different.

              My problem with the “the system is rigged against women” meme is that it is barely distinguishable from the “the system is rigged against Sanders” meme. It ignores all kinds of factors and given that we’ve already demonstrated our willingness to vote for women it just doesn’t wash.

              It is wrong. And I think it is defeatist. Why should women like Warren even try if it was true?

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted March 6, 2020 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

                You may think that. You may be right to think that but the people voting may still think that way.

            • Mike Anderson
              Posted March 6, 2020 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

              Perceived electability is a more important than it’s ever been, and I think that’s pushing Dems toward centrism more than masculinism.

              The 2 candidates with the highest name recognition are remaining, and of those 2 the centrist is well ahead. The big picture of this Dem primary race is rather predictable and unsurprising.

        • eric
          Posted March 6, 2020 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

          Diana, are you referencing the Lake Wobegone effect? I.e. the tendency for every individual to think they are above average? In this case, it would manifest as: “sure, *I* would vote for a woman. But the rest of America isn’t as egalitarian as me. They might not. So I’d better get a man through the primary and into the general.”

          Is that the sort of thing you’re thinking is happening here?

          I think that’s a common conception. it’s related to psychology’s Attribution bias. Which is real, and does affect people’s opinions. But AFAIK, in this narrow case of political voting, empirically it’s a bust. IIRC there’s no evidence people actually vote that way, trying to second-guess their neighbor. Moreover, let’s say it is happening and it’s one of the causes of losses for folks like Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, etc. What is the best response? Tell people to vote their consciences in the primary, I guess. Beyond that, there’s really not much that I see that we could do.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted March 6, 2020 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

            I think it could have been the case. I have no evidence of course but as a woman I probably wouldn’t pick now to elect a woman and see if this would be the time when people wanted a woman.

            • eric
              Posted March 6, 2020 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

              I would’ve voted Klobuchar had she stayed in for super Tuesday. Slim chance, yeah, but as I said above, the only way you change things is to actually vote for the person you’d like to see win. At least in the primary.

              I worry/was worried about Warren’s and Sanders’ policies pushing independent and undecided voters away from a Dem vote, but I honestly didn’t worry about any of the top 5 Dem candidates’ personal attributes causing losses. IMO this is mostly (though not wholly) a fight for the votes of independents in midwestern states. That subset of the population, IMO, isn’t going to be turned off by either a woman or a gay Indiana veteran. IMO in terms of both personality and presence, any of the five would’ve been effective in the debates against Trump.

    • Mike Anderson
      Posted March 6, 2020 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

      I for one question whether the US would be ready for a female president.

      The American voters favored the female candidate by 3 million votes in 2016.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 6, 2020 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

        But again this has never been tested that a woman is going face to face with someone like Trump that people are so desperate to get out of office. I don’t think it was a risk people would take…and look who’s in the lead – the moderate white man. It seems people wanted to go with a choice that had less new things to try out.

        • GBJames
          Posted March 6, 2020 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

          I think you’re moving the goalposts here. I’m disputing your assertion that Americans aren’t ready for a female president. You’re coming back with tRump-fear. That’s a different issue.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted March 6, 2020 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

            No it’s the same issue. I don’t think people who want to get Trump out are willing to risk that Americans may not be ready. They can try that when there is less at stake.

            • Mike Anderson
              Posted March 6, 2020 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

              I think Trump has people yearning for a kind of normalcy and not the “revolution” proposed by Warren and Sanders.

        • EdwardM
          Posted March 6, 2020 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

          Your argument boils down to “it can’t be that the “moderate white man” won because his arguments and policies align more with what people like…it’s because he’s not a she.”

          It’s a neat trick, I’ll agree, saying one was defeated in an election because of sexism not because one’s policies ideas didn’t resonate with voters. It gets one off the hook and is easy explanation that doesn’t require one to re-examine their ideas. I give Warren some credit for only going part way there.

          • EdwardM
            Posted March 6, 2020 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

            Oops. Great jumping jesus. I thought I was replying to someone else (darwinwins, way up yonder). I have no idea how I managed to do that. Sorry

            • Diana MacPherson
              Posted March 6, 2020 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

              Oh ok then I apologize for being angry at you seemingly changing what I argued about because clearly you weren’t arguing with me and what I didn’t say. Shit. Good thing I didn’t have my finger on a nuclear missile.

              • EdwardM
                Posted March 6, 2020 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

                No worries. I, of course, owe YOU the apology, not the other way round. Your response was appropriate.

                I really don’t know how that happened. I suppose I got distracted and forgot where the hell I was on the reply list.

                This and other snafus are evidence that I should stop commenting altogether. WEIT’s a good place but it sure doesn’t need me around here.


              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted March 6, 2020 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

                Nah commenting is important so don’t stop. I love the comments. I learn lots and I get to fight with GBJames.

              • GBJames
                Posted March 6, 2020 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

                Wait. What?

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted March 6, 2020 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

            Oh FFS it’s not even close to that. Read slowly what I wrote again. I said that there may be a combination of things and one of those things (see I had two paragraphs is my argument) may have been that it was too much of a risk. I said. I thing about the guy winning because he was white. Fuck I hate it when people twist my words to sound like they’ve been victimized.

        • Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

          I totally agree with that.

  19. Charles A Sawicki
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    I stopped supporting Warren when she responded so poorly to the native american controversy. It was joke, but she made a big deal out of it with all sorts of desperate responses. Way to weak to stand up to what Republicans would subject her to. Klobuchar would have been good, which is why I supported her. She is smart, tough with a sense of humor. She also worked her way up from near poverty in childhood.

  20. Tim Landman
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    Sexism had nothing to do with Warren’s fall. It helped her if anything. She likely had more people voting for her because she’s a woman than not voting for her because of it. Being a woman is an asset in a Democratic primary. Sanders, for instance, has been confronted several times, includin in a debate, for not being a woman or a person of color – despite being Jewish, which people for whom whiteness is important definitely don’t count as white.

    And now, given that Sanders too is foundering, we’ll be stuck with dementia Joe, whom the demoralized Sanders people will not get behind – just like last time with Hillary – and whom Trump will rip apart in the debates. Four more years of kids in cages while hopefully not dying or going bankrupt because of the COVID-19 epidemic. Brace yourselves.

    • Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

      Well, I don’t think Biden is demented, but I definitely disagree with you that Jews aren’t people of color. Of course they’re not–they’re counted as white. They are not seen as oppressed.

      • Tim Landman
        Posted March 6, 2020 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

        Biden’s quite clearly sundowning. He babbles incoherently, forgets where he is, whom he’s talking to, what race he’s currently in and even whose VP he was. This is way beyond the mere studder it’s claimed to be. Caitlin Johnston has a good article on the issue here:


        He’s still way better than Trump for most, but I think enough people will again be so sick of the whole thing that they’ll wote for a third party or not vote at all.

        As for Jews not being white, I meant people who think being white is a *good* thing, usually don’t consider Jews white. People who think being white is bad, do, but from their own perspective, they really shouldn’t. Because how can a group of people who are denied access to the privileged class – and often even considered the worst enemy of it – by the privileged still belong to the same privileged class?

        • Mark R.
          Posted March 6, 2020 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

          “He’s still way better than Trump for most, but I think enough people will again be so sick of the whole thing that they’ll wote for a third party or not vote at all.”


          I read comments like yours and wonder what the hell you feel about Trump. ANYTHING Biden has said to date…flubs, idiocy, dementia shit, whatever, is not anywhere near Trump’s off the wall comments and actions and Putin love. Maybe you’re the one who will vote for a third party or not at all. I don’t understand why you’d post a pro-Russian comment like this. Putin wants Americans to feel hopeless, afraid and forlorn…good job on pushing Russian propaganda.

  21. KD
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    On September 26, 2019, it became a published fact that big business and Wall Street donors were threatening to support Trump if Warren received the nomination, apparently in response to her threats to break up big banks and implement a wealth tax.


    Warren’s popularity in the polls peaked around October 9, 2019, and began steadily declining thereafter.

    Given that the American media is controlled by 6 giant corporations which are in turn owned by a handful of billionaires, I think her positions were too radical for the Oligarchs, which led the ship of the political establishment to start tacking to ports elsewhere. Why they settled where they settled is beyond me, but it strikes me that a Democratic nominee for President can get further advocating for the legalization of pedophilia than they will calling for modest financial regulations or capital gains tax increases (AKA “Communism”).

    • KD
      Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

      When the Mainstream Media talk about “electability”, they mean a candidate who will not threaten the vested financial interests of the Donor Class.

      FDR, for example, did not have “electability” and was despised by the media in his day (until his administration started regulating the media). But he ran at a time when the Democratic Party was not beholden to corporate donors, which really got started in earnest in the 70’s. Hence the shift on the Left from traditional class-based politics to identity politics. Goldman Sachs supports Black Nationalism, not Bank Nationalization.

      • KD
        Posted March 6, 2020 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

        If sexism could hamstring a candidate in the Democratic primary, then Hillary Clinton would never have received the nomination.

        I think a closer examination of the relationship between HRC and Wall Street and Warren and Wall Street reveals what you need to see.

        Yes, she had flaws, she lied, but she didn’t plagiarize her way through law school, or claim to graduate in the top of her class when she was 75 out of 84, or copy Neil Kinnock’s speech word for word without attribution. Being completely full of BS is clearly not a disqualifier for the Presidency in either the GOP or the Democratic Party.

    • Mike Anderson
      Posted March 6, 2020 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

      I think her positions were too radical for the Oligarchs

      Her positions were too radical for the Democratic voters. This is no secret to anyone following the politics and polls. The party, as a whole, is simply not that far left.

      • KD
        Posted March 7, 2020 at 8:10 am | Permalink

        You have to respect the devotion of Democratic Voters, they have replaced the Roman Catholics. They listen well to their high priests on MSNBC and never fail to obey without question. I wish them the best of luck in their holy war against Orange Satan, who may not actually be Satan, but is an ugly self-serving cretin of man.

        • Mike Anderson
          Posted March 7, 2020 at 11:29 am | Permalink

          They listen well to their high priests on MSNBC and never fail to obey without question.

          Utter nonsense. Biden is in very strong shape.

    • Filippo
      Posted March 6, 2020 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

      Would you say that, for all practical, realistic purposes, the U.S. is an oligarchy?

      • KD
        Posted March 7, 2020 at 7:50 am | Permalink

        I would say that for all practical realistic purposes, all political systems are either an run by clique of elites or they are dictatorships. America is definitely not a dictatorship.

        Aristotle made a distinction between aristocracy and oligarchy. Aristocracy is rule by “the best” and “the best” rule collectively in a manner to promote the commonwealth. Oligarchy is rule by the rich, who rule collectively to enrich themselves, but in a way that destroys the commonwealth and leads either to conquest by external powers or dictatorship and tyranny.

        America seems squarely on the path of oligarchy. The middle class is the mediator that keeps a republican system from collapsing into its extremes. Income inequality, a shrinking and compressing middle class are the prelude Caesarism. The business school mentality in which beating next quarters earnings estimates, and in which 3-5 years is an eternity encourages the kind of thinking that neglects looking at the obvious and considering the systemic impact 15 or 30 years out. But not entirely, as many oligarchs have nuclear-proof bunkers in New Zealand. So I’m not sure if people are just blind, or they understand the dangers of the extractive model of capitalism they practice but believe they can somehow escape the consequences if things blow up into say another depression. But if you blow things again like in the 1920’s and 30’s, I’m not sure its going to be so great hunkering down in your bunker in New Zealand. It might make more sense in the long term to pursue a more politically, ecologically, and economically sustainable model of global capitalism.

        • KD
          Posted March 7, 2020 at 8:01 am | Permalink

          I think this paper says it all about what happens in American public policy:

          Click to access gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

          Gilens says that average citizens only get what they want if wealthy Americans and business-oriented interest groups also want it; and that when a policy favored by the majority of the American public is implemented, it is usually because the economic elites did not oppose it.

          If you want to know why you can’t have decent healthcare or affordable housing, you can thank your betters.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted March 7, 2020 at 8:22 am | Permalink

            I think, at least in this moment in time, social progress is possible because votes still count but it’s getting more and more difficult as money plays more and more a role in politics. Still, the option to elect someone who will give the US healthcare exists and the people are not going for it.

            • KD
              Posted March 7, 2020 at 10:48 am | Permalink

              I think it is important to look at the role of mass media in generating public opinion. Noam Chomsky may be an imperfect vessel, but his book Manufacturing Consent is clear articulation of how owners of mass media can translate their ownership interest in media into mass opinion. There are obvious limits to this, of course, as Bloomberg’s presidential campaign demonstrates.

  22. EB
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    My guess as to why Warren failed was her identification with what Barbara Ehrenreich calls the ‘professional-managerial class’ (i.e. lawyers, doctors, Harvard professors, etc.). The idea is that there is a lot of antipathy among the working class to their managers and people of that stratum in society, which surpasses their antipathy toward owners of capital (whom working people may never encounter even once their entire life). Politicians that are too professorial in their manner of speech, attitudes, etc need to tap into something that will overcome such antipathy (as Obama succeeded in doing), or they will have a hard time not being seen as ‘phony’ in regards to their caring about working families.

    • Posted March 7, 2020 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

      Convincing. Here’s hoping for Sherrod Brown to run next time (someone with similar political orientation as Warren – and me – but with plenty of working class street cred.)

  23. Thanny
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    I think there’s roughly zero chance that the number of sexists who didn’t vote for Warren because she was a woman wasn’t completely dwarfed by the number of sexists who voted for her because she was a woman.

    Ditto for Clinton.

  24. FB
    Posted March 6, 2020 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    My own theory is that her wardrobe is a bit boring. Google Warren and then Pelosi and compare the colors. I’m just saying.

    • Filippo
      Posted March 7, 2020 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

      “My own theory is that her wardrobe is a bit boring. Google Warren and then Pelosi and compare the colors. I’m just saying.”

      NY Times in general, and Times fashion maven Vanessa Friedman specifically, most good to to inform Times readers about female political candidate fashion proclivities. I don’t see a similar focus imposed on male candidates.

      Today happened to look at a clipping from the NY Times Style Magazine, a photo of a comely young lady wearing a Prada sweater retailing for approx. $4,600. Who has the money, and what psychological mindset is predisposed, to pay that much?

%d bloggers like this: