- cross-posted to:
- indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works
In the summer of 2016, I was living in Washington, DC, and working at The Atlantic, both places that were consumed with the presidential election later that year. The conventional wisdom—backed up by polling, news coverage, and rationality—was that Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump. At a work happy hour one evening, I remember talking with one of my then bosses about what might actually change under a Clinton administration. Pragmatically, the answer was: nothing much. Emotionally, though, the stakes felt astronomical. I can remember arguing that Clinton’s inauguration would upend the way America thought about women—that seeing a woman elevated to the most powerful job in the world would overwrite decades of conditioning about who was allowed to have authority and what might be possible. The shifts would be seismic, I argued, even if they weren’t immediately obvious. This was a moment when progress still felt inevitable.
Sexism didn’t crater Hillary and Kamala, their arrogance, shitty politics and hubris did. Oh and the DNC openly thumbing the scale for Hillary and simply choosing Kamala as the candidate. They were terrible candidates and ran bad campaigns that refused any attempts to earn left votes.
The article doesn’t say they lost directly because of sexism, it details how sexism plagued their campaigns.
Clinton won the popular vote though.
Kamala did not.
Sarah Palin being the largest cluster fuck of the three almost seems unfair.
The article isn’t about their elections, it’s about the sexist narratives that followed them.
The more public appearances they have, the less popular they become?
deleted by creator
Ovaries?
Theyre dumb as fuck and only care about serving the billionaires.




