According to this article 13% of men won't vote for a woman for president.

But I do think there are enough men in this country who truly hate women.


And it sucks.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/about-1-in-8-americans-think-men-are-better-suited-emotionally-for-office-survey-finds/ar-BBVYyTv

Also, the referenced article on Beto

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/15/beto-orourke-backlash-women-1223073

I'm not discouraged, however. It simply means we must work harder to convince them that they are wrong. Our candidates can only do so much. They need us to get out and speak up, too.
Great article, Lunabell. Here is a similar article.....
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/13-americans-think-women-less-210905349.html

Here is another...... https://www.truthdig.com/articles/report-13-of-americans-still-believe-men-are-better-suited-emotionally-for-politics/

I would imagine that there are more who won’t admit it as not a socially desireable response.

That's pretty good.

misogynist in this country. I am a woman and it makes me angry, but we must win this election.

as a woman...

Can win at this moment. Also, in my opinion none of our undoubtedly talented women can win the rustbelt states we need. I believe Biden and possibly Ryan can win the presidency. We must win 2020 and the Path runs through the rustbelt...

Ryan is the way backwards.

Fuck that.

Just like proclaiming from the get go that no woman can win. Already proven wrong.

Trump is squatting in the White house. I don't much care who wins as long as it is a Democrat. And none of the talented women running in 20 can win a general. One of the reasons we lose is the refusal to accept our situation realistically. Biden and Ryan can win the states we need. And allowing Trump four more years by nominating an unelectable candidate would truly set us back...6/ 3 SCOTUS.

Sorry. Your opinion is outdated.

Face facts. This is a misogynistic country. I don't like it. However, we need to live to fight another day by ridding this country of Trump, and if that takes a male person...so be it.

"Face facts..."

You'll then support your premise (women can't win the Presidency) with objective facts (rather than a post hoc ergo promper hoc fallacy), yes?

Hillary totally...she should have won. But I don't see any of the women candidates winning a primary or a general in 20. I do believe this country is to sexist to elect a woman president.

And then some. We all know the election was stolen from her. There is no question that a woman can win. The question is if we can secure our voting system to the point where it won’t be stolen from her.

She was the most talented of any presidential candidates. It should not have been close enough to steal.

Those neanderthals wouldn't be voting for our candidate under any circumstances

To pull the lever for a woman. And that is probably true for both black and white men

Several black men that I work with told me they would not vote for Hillary for president because she was a woman. After the election, they told me they didn't go to the polls at all because of this.

No one is more critical of women than other women. I've been married three times, all worked, and all were emphatic that they'd NEVER work for another woman! It shocked me, as I spent much of my career working for a woman with no issues. And I can't tell you the number of women I've know who are in constant conflict with their own mothers. I think it is an issue, and a concern, as I'm currently looking at a Harris/Pete ticket.

who can honestly say that a woman is NOT able to lead a country.


She lead like a woman and that is her power!

It is impossible for a woman to get it right. She's either too ambitious or too weak. Too emotional or too cold. Smiles too much or not enough. Too aggressive or not assertive enough. The media may point this out from time to time, but they are among the worst offenders, with both male and female reporters playing into the stereotypes with, "People say she's..."

So even if 100% of men and women say they would be willing to vote for a woman, they still might not vote for any actual woman. This is unfortunate because I think we have a lot of good women running this year. But I don't think it's in the cards yet and the biased media coverage is reflecting that.

no surprise here.

I’ve seen evidence of it right here.

That is not what the article said.

Roughly 13 percent of Americans still think men are “better suited emotionally” than women to hold office, according to a survey by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/about-1-in-8-americans-think-men-are-better-suited-emotionally-for-office-survey-finds/ar-BBVYyTv

Oddly they did not break down the percent of men and the percent of women who have this belief.

females who appeared to be "modern" but were actually hostile toward empowered women. At this point I'm remembering the antagonism among too many women toward Nancy Pelosi, the highest ranking woman in American politics.

I always suspected Clarence Thomas's little clique of admiring female clerks who testified for him against attorney Anita Hill probably had something like that going on, in addition to the typical alignment with male authority.

Then there are all those whose beliefs don't allow it. Known and know a bunch of those too.

I'm with those who suspect this 13% is way low if you count all those who won't be voting for a woman because of her gender, as opposed to those who would never vote for a woman period.

who won't vote for a women, are trump voters anyway.

Are the ones who will be reluctant to vote for a woman.

"Overall, the fraction of Americans who believe that men are better suited emotionally for politics than most women has declined over the years.11 Only about 13 percent of both men and women now think that women are less suited for politics than men—a change of about 37 percentage points since 1975, when the average peaked at almost 50 percent. This result is heartening yet disappointing. The change over time shows a tremendous amount of progress in the notion of equality of the sexes. By 2018, the fraction of Americans who believe that women are less suited emotionally for politics had declined by a full 5 percentage points compared to just four years earlier. That’s good news for the record number of women currently running for the Democratic nomination. At the same time, however, the mere fact that a solid 13 percent of Americans continue to think that women are less suited for politics than men could cause candidates to lose elections ("

https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Women_in_Politics.pdf

I have made that point since joining this site in 2002. Hillary was my favorite Democratic nominee of my lifetime but I fully understood she had very low upside in 2016. Hillary needed to be nominated in 2008, when the national slant was so severe in our favor that the situational boost would have been more than enough to push her over the top. Then once she fixed the Bush economy the stigma against female nominees would have been gone. It will never be fully recognized how much we forfeited by failing to nominate a female in 2008. That type of situational boost is almost never available during a presidential year, in contrast to midterms when it is quite common.

Then we could have had a charismatic male in Obama waiting in the wings for the much more problematic 2016 cycle, after we held the White House for 8 years.

This time my two favorites are Beto and Klobuchar but I can easily separate them by recognizing that the male has far greater opportunity to be elected. No other variable matters in a thought process like that. People screw up perspective all the time by looking at dozens of dizzying factors instead of one or two pivotal ones.

Democrats controlled both chambers in the 111th Congress (January 3, 2009 – January 3, 2011).

...they think men are "better suited emotionally for politics." That does not mean that they would not vote for a woman. For one thing, that is not the only thing influencing someone's vote. For another, the particulars of a particular female candidate vs. a particular male candidate would come into play regardless of what someone believes as a generality.

The OP's headline is just completely wrong, and many people here are responding assuming it's true. That's how misinformation spreads...

An I ought to edit my own post headline as it isn't true what I said.

a Democratic nominee?

Because I suspect there is a hell of a lot of overlap. If the overlap is 100% then there is nothing to worry about -- those people will certainly not vote for our nominee anyway, so who cares if there is a second reason?

What becomes relevant to a discussion of primary candidates is when people are open to voting for a Democrat in theory, but won't vote for a Democrat with this or that specific characteristic.

He despises women. He made it clear he will never vote for one.

When Hillary won the nomination in 2016, he became a Republican and supported Trump.

There you go.

we're "vagina voters."

our best shot to break the glass ceiling.

She was the first woman to get the nomination. This after being a favorite of many in the media and establishment on the left since 1992. However, she had both extremely strong pluses AND well entrenched negatives. Had she been the nominee in 2008, a strong year for us, she probably would have won.

It might also have been that it was year where many were looking for change.

Then they ignore that point and say women start out 13 points behind. In fact, most of the Republicans will vote for the Republican, no matter what gender the Democratic nominee is.

So, the question comes down to needing more information than given. Were Democrats who said they were more comfortable with men asked if and who they voted for in the 2016 general election or who they would vote for between a Democratic woman and Trump. They might still, however reluctantly, be for the Democrat.

The same goes for Independents.

Only knowing that additional information would tell you if there would be a real difference just dependent on gender. Note, this is 180 degrees from the pre 2016 punditry that HRC would put college educated Republican women as likely HRC voters.

Here in TX. Even women won't vote for women here. Number one bigotry.

So honestly that 13% is surprisingly low to me.

But unlike a lot of folks on here what this means to me is that we have to have a nominee that will inspire people and signal change and a direction forward and who will get people out to the polls due to their excitement.

Others would rather focus on that 13% as an excuse to concede to those people's backward way of thinking before we even technically start primary season.

Well, the party has a solid minority of conservatives/conservative leaners, so they get their candidates too. Hope they didn't hope for better quality.

No Republican has ever won the presidency without Ohio.

to advance himself? Like most conservative leaning Democrats, most of his positions are potentially liberal enough to pass for a lot of our voters, at least since he decided to switch and support abortion.

But we're in a battle for the future of our nation, and his repeated efforts to make trouble in the house do not appeal to this liberal, and his efforts to oust Pelosi from the critical position of speaker were inexcusable. At that point, the house simply had no other candidate who even came close to her exceptional talent, experience, power and stature, and respect from her peers.

Note that Ryan is not exactly admired by those peers. He initially offered himself for speaker even though he had no leadership experience whatsoever (!!!), and of course his peers turned him down emphatically. Their own careers and hopes and dreams for serving their nation depend on having a strong speaker. Someone most dislike and don't respect, who's ruled himself out for even a modest leadership position, just won't do.

Exceptions, of course, were his fellow blue dogs who needed his help to oust Nancy, with whom he was able to force a probable term limit on the ONE woman among the 12 top leaders of the two parties. Six Democrats, and he felt no need to impose term limits on any of the 5 men?

And THIS mostly failed effort is the only thing that makes him stand out among at least 18 candidates who can match and/or trump his liberal positions. He also, critically, has no achievements that make him stand out even from his 224 house colleagues, and, critically, he has no other qualifications to be president.

To my mind, in this period of great national emergency, his willingness to hurt our party for really stupid self aggrandizement (WHAT did he gain?) reveals him to be seriously lacking the right stuff.

He doesn't like Nancy- I do...and we elected 31 moderates in 2018 so we have to acknowledge that is where the votes for an electoral college victory will come from in WI, PA and MI...Ohio would seal the deal...if we lost one of those states...Trump is way worse than Ryan ever could be. We are looking at four more years of Trump if we don't take care...and learn the lessons of 18.

our party in the GE, if he will campaign hard for our candidates and avoid offending women voters, but that his biggest contribution will probably be keeping his congressional seat in the Democratic caucus.

We've both made a case. Many desirable positions are achieved by people whose only outstanding talent is for self aggrandizement; whether they manage to hold onto them depends on the rest of what they bring. I think what he's shown us is most of what he is, including some unfortunate traits have already crippled his ability to rise within our party leadership. You think there's more.

So let's leave it here for now and see how he performs.

won't vote for a woman. I don't like it but it is true.

I find that hard to believe.

I really doubt many if any of that 13% would be likely to vote for any Democratic Party candidate of any gender. This number represents the openly unapologetic, and aware sexist population.

The number, that isn’t really able to be polled, are the ones that feel they would vote for a woman, but when it actually comes down to it will hold female candidates to an unequal standard making the “earning” of their vote near impossible.. but they “would” vote.

It’s that age old insidious Misogyny of, if she’s tough, then she’s too much of a “bitch” or “shrill” or “unlikable”. If she’s physically attractive, then she can’t possibly be smart enough to be President. If she’s got children, how could she POSSIBLY take care of her family and such a demanding job? If she’s a high road candidate, then she’s too nice and passive and “female” to be President.

That’s the kind of ridiculous, disgusting, and atrocious bullshit our female candidates have to overcome that men don’t.

that will