"Warren makes the case a woman has the best chance to beat Trump" (CNN)
"Warren and Klobuchar Teach the Boys a Lesson" (NYT)
Out of all the topics that surfaced during the 2020 Democratic Debate in Iowa yesterday, one of the highlights was Elizabeth Warren's statements about a female nominee's chances at defeating Trump in the upcoming election. "Can a woman beat Donald Trump?" Ever since Hillary Clinton's loss in the previous election, many Democratic supporters have been worried about the possibility of a repeat. However, Warren strongly showed her stance at the debate, making the case that a female nominee in the Democratic party actually has better chances of winning than a male nominee, citing her fellow (male) candidates' electoral losses as evidence. Amy Klobuchar, the only other female candidate on the stage, agreed with her as well.
From other's eyes, Warren's assertion was also seen as a response to Bernie Sanders' private comment that women couldn't win the presidency, an issue that was in the news days before. Though Sanders denied making the comment, Warren brushed it off, stating that she did want to fight over it. Instead, she focused on addressing the larger misconception she perceives among Democratic voters.
While it's heartwarming to see Warren and Klobuchar bringing this topic to the table and argue against the notion that a woman's presidential ambitions are unrealistic, I don't necessarily believe that a female nominee would definitely have a greater chance at winning than a male one. Rather, a candidate's campaigning strategy, popularity with the public (polls), policy goals, and other factors seem more trustworthy as tools to gauge a candidate's chances of success in the election.
3 comments:
While I do agree with you Dani that those aspects are definitely part of a candidate's success in being the Democratic nominee, I also believe that since there are lots of uninformed voters and older-aged folk, some of these people might choose a candidate that is male over female because of their mindset that "a woman cannot hold such a high position and since being president is a man's job." This older style of thought process might prevent us from having a female nominee. I, for one, completely disagree with this statement but it is possible that we have a male winner even though this is the Democratic party and are perceived to have more liberal ideals.
I would like to agree that a candidate's campaign, values, etc. are the basis on which they win/lose, gender is still a huge part of politics today; women make up over half the population in the United States, and yet are totally underrepresented within our government. The United States has never seen a female president, and just as it was revolutionary for Barack Obama to become the first black president, the first female president would be extraordinary. This is more than just a candidate's campaign; the president is someone who represents our nation, so having a woman president for the first time would be very representational of the United States. However, I haven't been following the campaign trail of either female candidate (any candidate at all really oops) I can't state my opinion on their moral stances, etc. It would be kind of dope tho to see a female president - historical even.
I agree that it is not necessarily a candidate's gender that helps a candidate win; his/her policy ideas are a stronger factor. However, these policy ideas and stances on global issues may stem from their unique experiences as a woman. Just as ethnicity provides insight into cultural issues, Warren or Klobuchar's female perspectives provide new ideas to consider. In turn, they may appeal to a new group of female voters, potentially bringing in voters that would not have participated in politics otherwise. Thus, their gender has indirectly impacted their candidacy.
Post a Comment