Here's why it's sexist (and shortsighted) to dismiss Elizabeth Warren's chances in New Hampshire

[BlueMTexpat]

Sexism is such an engrained bias that it's almost impossible to avoid being sucked into it. In politics though, it's particularly pronounced.

https://www.indy100.com/article/elizabeth-warren-iowa-new-hampshire-debate-sexism-democratic-primary-biden-sanders-buttigieg-9325091

...
But speaking on CNN after last night's New Hampshire debate, political commentator Jess McIntosh reminded us all why this is so so flawed.

"Usually we consider the third place candidate out of Iowa very much still in the race, especially in a race this fluid."

It's a valid point in itself. In the 2008 Democratic caucus, Barack Obama came first, but Hillary Clinton won second place by just one delegate and 0.3 per cent of the vote. The third candidate, John Edwards, remained in the race until after the South Carolina primary. In 2012 Mitt Romney came third in the Republican caucus by popular votes, and went on to win the nomination. While in 2016, Trump actually came second in Iowa (beaten by Ted Cruz with a substantial margin), while Marco Rubio in third place remained in the race until mid-March.

But McIntosh did not stop there:

"We're considering a man who has yet to receive any votes, or be held accountable at any national stage, as very much a part of this race. So the idea that Elizabeth Warren would be erased, especially after a night where she put in another A-game performance on gun violence prevention, on reproductive freedom, on race... I think it would be a mistake to write her off."

Regardless on whether or not you agree on Warren's performance, McIntosh makes a good point about how the nation completely refuses to hold Trump accountable, while holding a constant microscope to everything Warren does. It feels like Hillary's emails all over again.

Former Obama advisor David Axelrod, also on the panel, then responds, attempting to justify erasing Warren from the campaign on the basis that she wasn't forceful enough when it came to interjecting during the debate - after all even Tom Steyer got more time than she did.

But McIntosh was having none of it:

"She had her hand up and if she had jumped in she would have been called out for being too much of a bully."
...

***********
btw: the emphasis IS in the article; not mine.

As always, Warren is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't!

But I hope that McIntosh is right.

[Jarqui]

1. Don't agree with the thread title

Some may dismiss Warren's chances for sexist (shortsighted) reasons.
Others might have other reasons.
What those reasons would be, I'm not sure because I do not dismiss her chances.
But to leap to that they must be sexist or shortsighted is too much of an assumption without hearing their reasoning.

[Kurt V.]

2. google implicit sexism

[NurseJackie]

3. Thank you... it reminds me of those who accuse BS critics of being "Anti-Semitic"

It's lame.

[Kurt V.]

5. google implicit bias.

[BlueMTexpat]

8. Sorry, but I'm disappointed

in your response, NJ!

And you are definitely NOT someone I'm usually disappointed in.

[thesquanderer]

10. Just as with Hillary. I think there is an element of sexism, but you can't lump ALL of the critique

into that category.

[BlueMTexpat]

7. Ask yourself: would she be

getting even half the criticism and nitpicking that she does ... if she were a white male?

How is it that someone who has only won elections in his home town - not even on a statewide level - being considered on a par with someone who literally created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - a federal agency - from scratch and who is also one of our most effective Democratic Senators?

How was it in 2016 that a man who had NEVER down held a full-time job until he was in his 40s - and even then it was only after he had won the position for Mayor of Burlington, after having unsuccessfully run several times on a different party ticket - considered to be on a par with Hillary Clinton?

The answers to all of these questions are clear ... except for those who are in denial.

Women not only have to be twice as good. They have to be at least ten times as good!

Fortunately, Hillary was. And so is Elizabeth!

[Nikki28]

4. I would vote for

Both Liz and Amy if they won and can beat the orange toad.I am desperate enough to hope Bloomberg can use his money and break out Michael A from jail because I know he knew how to kick Trump's but,which is why the criminals is one of the reasons he is behind bars so early.

[BlueMTexpat]

9. Thanks, Nicki28!

I will vote for whoever is the Dem candidate.

But in the primaries, I'm all in for Warren.

[tgards79]

6. The problem with Warren...

...is not her gender. It's that her policies are identical to Bernie Sanders and he is well ahead of her in all polls, each state and nationally. She is blocked not because of her third place finish, but because of Sanders. How does she get past Sanders?