The first female president will be a Republican
By: Kimberly Ross
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Kamala Harris lost to President-elect Donald Trump in earth-shattering fashion. During their respective runs, Clinton and Harris were viewed as inevitable and deserving. Each was conferred the special ability to make history by becoming the first female president, ending the United States's patriarchal domination once and for all. At least, this is the narrative they sold.
Each campaign should have been about the best Democrat for the job, who just happened to be a woman. Instead, the campaigns were so focused on breaking a glass ceiling that all things became secondary to the biology of their candidates.
There will be no lessons learned from Harris's decisive loss to Trump. Democrats will wonder how they could lose, all the while ignoring the very serious problems with the Harris-Walz campaign and its messaging. The lack of self-awareness is bound to continue as the party tries to pick up the pieces following a resounding defeat.
After two attempts and no win, this much is clear: the first female president will be a Republican, not a Democrat.
Harris made everything about "joy" and vibes for most of her short campaign. However, the impression of ease and happiness was largely overshadowed by the utterly condescending attitude with which she and her surrogates operated.
Abortion was the main driver of conversations and messaging. A September Harris campaign ad featuring Hadley Duvall, a survivor of incest, included the words, "Donald Trump did this. He took away our freedom." Another abortion ad from the campaign featured the family of Amber Nicole Thurman, who died after complications from a medication abortion, with her mother saying, "My daughter is gone because of what Donald Trump did."
The Harris-Walz campaign was obsessed with the abortion matter. It gleefully spread the idea that abortion bans kill women, and women in the U.S. have lost their freedoms and would continue to lose them if Trump was victorious. It engaged in calculated, emotional falsehoods centered on women, and Harris-Walz supporters, who were more interested in winning than the truth, fully believed them.
In addition to the pro-abortion push was the sexist effort to deem Republican men as emotional or physical abusers of their wives. An ad even came out telling women, "What happens in the booth stays in the booth," as if we're incapable of making our own voting decisions and telling our husbands about them.
The Harris-Walz team was deeply invested in a patronizing campaign aimed at women and men, filled with scare tactics, outright lying, shaming, and the idea that making history was more important than a candidate's substance or policy stances. Since this is its track record when it comes to female presidential candidates, it's hard to imagine the Democratic Party crossing that finish line first. If you can't convince voters twice that a patriarchy-fighting "girl boss" will save the nation, you probably never will. What makes much more sense is a future that includes a Republican woman as the first to serve as commander in chief.
Time will tell who becomes the first female presidential candidate for the Republican Party, but it's safe to say she won't focus on sex and gender above all else. There's no reason to exclude the achievement of making history, but that should never be a main motivation for any candidate. It's a tiresome, superficial strategy that clearly does not work. Beyond that, the nation deserves so much more than a leader who includes among her top goals the desire to soothe progressive sensibilities.
In a now-deleted X post, gun control activist Shannon Watts said, "Kamala Harris was not a flawed candidate. America is a flawed country."
Watts and many other leftists believe Harris was robbed of the presidency because she's a woman. They also seem to think her trailblazing desires somehow nullified any defects in her performance as a candidate. Ironically, if Democrats had made the campaign less about "girl power" and cared more about skills, abilities, and accomplishments, Harris may have fared better Tuesday.
Immutable characteristics don't make someone more deserving of the office of the president. This is a lesson Democrats, fresh off a massive failure, still can't grasp. This collective inability to focus on what truly matters is what led to both an Electoral College and popular vote win for their most hated opponent.
Tags
Who is online
122 visitors
She was a diversity hire from the very beginning, chosen for her ethnicity and gender. It went downhill from there. KJP is another prime example of identity politics, having checked all the boxes and has turned out to be the worst press secretary of all. Democrats seem to be very slow learners.
And many of them are still out there insulting and name calling those that voted for Trump. They need to realize many of those were democrats and they need those people for votes. They will never get them back if they keep up this bullshit tactic of trying to shame someone for who they voted for.
Why can’t you let this shit go? It sounds racist and/or sexist every time someone says it. She has had a long career as a public servant in positions she earned - far more than anything Trump had done before being elected. The only time she was picked for a job, as opposed to competing for it was VP, but virtually every VP has been selected to appeal to some demographic - probably most commonly just because they are from a certain state that could bring in more votes for the presidential candidate. J D Vance is a perfect example. So stop with nonsense that there is something unusual about Harris in that regard.
Biden said she was specifically chosen because of race and gender. Look it up.
No he didn’t. You look it up.
[removed][✘]
As far as getting elected, I agree with this yet, at the same time, think it misrepresents a democratic presidency. To me, it suggests that if the Democrats put forth a candidate that was actually qualified and had a plan, then that Dem, if elected, would actually be a president in the sense most understand the term. That is, someone who leads his party and the nation. I don't believe that is the case.
Greg, in 1.1 touches on this when he says...
Add to that the fact that she was simply installed as the Democratic candidate, rather than voted into the position by the Democratic establishment. By "establishment" I mean those who actually control the Democratic party.
Then, consider Biden. The whole Dem/media machine backed him until he did something so obviously disqualifying (the debate in June) that not even they could figure out a way to sell him any further. In fact, I believe that the only reason the debate even happened was because they knew before hand that Biden was simply unsupportable any longer and intentionally threw him under the bus with the debate in order to get a new candidate. There is simply no way his handlers could have thought he would do well in this debate, no matter how much time they gave him to prepare.
Taken all together, it suggests to me that the Democratic machine is faced with a problem. If they put forth a strong, qualified candidate, they risk having someone who will not take orders and go their own way. Since the Dems are becoming increasingly socialist, they can't have that. If they put forth people like Biden, who only got elected because he wasn't Trump, or Harris, who fit the diversity meme, they have someone who is just a sock puppet for those who control the party but isn't likely to be that impressive or has tons of baggage.
So, getting back to the above quote, even if they put forth a candidate that isn't a diversity hire or other equivalent, we're still going to get the same result. A president that is controlled by some committee rather than a leader. There's probably a good chance Republican presidents are the same way, with the exception of Trump. Trump is an outsider, the appeal of which to many Americans, can't be overstated. Love him or hate him, he certainly is his own man.
In what way?
He is not an establishment Republican. He did not have a republican political career, pedigree or patronage prior to his 2015 bid for President.
Condi ……
Now that is Donald Trump's type.
I would much rather that in my party than this....
I am surprised the Dems didn't. He checks off all their criteria.
It checks every box but race.
Great googlie mooglies
Why is race important to you?
It's not, but it's all the leftist fascists think about
It’s not, but race and gender sure as shit is important to the left. Harris lost because of racism and misogyny, that’ all you hear on liberal opinion shows and internet forums.
Most likely. A Republicans support will be authentic and not driven by biology.