Americans Say They Would Vote For A Woman, But ...

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

A record number of women are running for president in 2020, and now two women look like serious contenders for the presidential nomination — Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, both of whom rose in the polls after strong performances in the first Democratic debate. Joe Biden is still in the lead, but Warren and Harris may be starting to chip away at one of the central conceits of the 2020 race so far: the idea that Biden has the best shot at defeating President Trump.

For months now, voters have told reporters that they want to elect a woman — but after Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, they simply can’t imagine a woman winning against Trump. And this calculus is often justified by beliefs about other people’s sexism — an Ipsos/Daily Beast poll in June, for example, found that only 33 percent of Democrats and independents said they believed that their neighbors would be comfortable with a female president. But the performances of Warren and Harris in the first debate may have allowed some of those voters to envision a path to victory for these candidates for the first time.

Even with Warren and Harris on the upswing, though, it’s hard not to wonder if sexism will still make it more difficult for a woman to win the nomination. After all, the other women in the race — including Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar, who seemed at the outset like promising contenders — are still barely registering in the polls. Whether these women are struggling because of their gender is pretty much impossible to say right now; in part, this is because there is, of course, no research to tell us how six female candidates might fare against 17 male competitors in a presidential primary.

But that doesn’t mean we’re completely in the dark about how sexism affects women’s electoral chances. Political science research has established that women who run for elected office have to navigate a thicket of stereotypes and double standards that their male counterparts are unlikely to experience. And while most scholars agree that partisanship usually overpowers voters’ biases about female leaders, no matter how deeply held, a long and crowded presidential primary could be especially challenging.

-more-

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-say-they-would-vote-for-a-woman-but/

[empedocles]

1. ' . . . a confusion of the ideal with the real, never goes unpunished' - Nietzche

[DesertRat]

2. "Presidential races are especially difficult for women, starting with the primary"

More:

Several political scientists told me that gender could play a bigger role early in a primary than it does later on. When voters don’t have much information about the candidates beyond basic information like gender, they’re more likely to rely on stereotypes. Several studies have even suggested that voters who make their choice with little or no outside knowledge are more likely to support a man. “There’s more room for gender bias to actually influence your decision if you know very little about who someone is beyond the fact that they’re a woman,” Anzia said. This could help explain why Harris’s and Warren’s standing rose after the debate, when they were able to make a strong impression on millions of potential primary voters who may not have known much about them before tuning in.

But voters’ prejudices about women may also just be stronger when it comes to the presidency. Studies have found that voters may be more biased against women when they run for executive offices. So women in a presidential campaign will likely have to do more than their male rivals to convince voters that they deserve to sit in the Oval Office, even if those voters also say they’re fine, in theory, with the idea of a female president.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-say-they-would-vote-for-a-woman-but/

[gulliver]

3. "A" woman can't beat Trump. A strong candidate who is a woman can.

So we need to make sure we nominate a strong candidate first. Whether that candidate is a woman or not is immaterial except inasmuch as it contributes to general election strength.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. This bullshit drives me up a wall. It was only a little less than three years ago...

that 65 million Americans voted for a woman.

Actually voted. Didn't just say they would on a poll.

And that was Hillary, with a ton of baggage they tried to crucify her with. And no one knew just how bad Trump would be.

Get Warren or Harris up there compared to Trump in a real election and you bet your damn ass Americans will vote for a woman.

(OK, Klobuchar, too, but she does look like a lost cause at this point. Maybe Veep?)

[OMGWTF]

5. Traitor Tot "won" with 77,000 votes spread over three states.

[Grokenstein]

6. "But, but, but, I did vote for a woman! I voted for Jill! ...Tee hee!"

And let's not forget all the progressiver-than-thous who actively campaigned "neverHillary" right up to and throughout Election Day...but now claim they "held their nose and voted for" her so they wouldn't have to face responsibility for the consequences of their idiocy.

We must remember, because these clowns are already ramping up to throw 2020 as well. They don't give a single damn about anything except the little tingle they get when we "proles" beg them to vote Dem, only for them to look down with Tucker Carlson Face and whisper, "but my conscience."

[Kahuna7]

7. +1,000,000