The question that no one is asking, but that everyone is thinking, is whether the Democratic Party should run another female nominee. 

Right now, the question is in the background, but it comes out in the open now and then. You can see it in online debates over the presidential aspirations of New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She’s great and all, people say, but can a woman win?

There is a tendency among liberals to privilege ideals over reality, and the result is a kind of naivete that can be disappointing, even possibly dangerous. We want to believe, because it feels good to believe, that it’s possible to elect a female American president – in spite of the fact that each time a woman has run, voters chose a man judged to be a rapist. 

Donald Trump won’t be running again (presumably). The defeat of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris could be chalked up to his “magic.” Then again, their defeats could be chalked up to something ordinary, knowable and entirely predictable: old-fashioned woman-hatred.

The data backs this up, according to Tiffany Carlock. She’s a grassroots activist who uses her newsletter, Candidly Tiff, to educate people about civics, strategy and what’s really happening in American politics. She recently examined the findings of the Catalist report, which is widely considered the most complete assessment of the 2024 election.

Bottom line for the next Democratic primary?

“Let’s be real,” she said, “2028 will be a sausage-fest (majority white) because that’s what many people want and they keep saying it without saying it. We hear you loud and clear, even if we don’t like it. 

“I am sure Kamala does, too.”

Below is my interview with Tiff.

Should the Democrats nominate a woman next time?

Based on the data I saw in the Catalist report, I am not sure that enough men are willing to vote for a woman. White men in particular voted for Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris at 36 percent vs. 40 percent for Joe Biden. There were drops in all male categories. The answer today is no, but that could change in 2028 if a woman is given a fair chance with a full primary calendar and more than 107 days.

When pressed, I imagine most men of all races would say gender and sex don’t matter. In your view, what tells us they’re lying?

Most men are not willing to admit their biases towards women. When men say Harris should have talked less about abortion or reproductive rights, that’s always a telltale sign. Some say she needed to focus on men’s issues, where was the policy? We all know Kamala Harris had policy. There are a lot of excuses, but all I hear is she was not good enough for you. And this includes men who voted for Kamala Harris but for 2028 will name a bunch of men, and zero women.

In your thread, you suggest this preference for men has something to do with Biden’s image, as in: he didn’t present himself as macho enough on account of being too old to be macho. Trump is old, too, but he’s a bully, which is the same as macho for a lot of people.

Trump’s machismo is very appealing to men, especially Latino men. Republicans pushing being an “alpha male” and saying Democrats are too “woke” for pushing back against toxic masculinity all play into their perception of how manliness should look. It’s ironic since Trump wears bronzer, plus some think Vice President JD Vance wears eyeliner. 

Nonetheless, Biden walking with a gait, speaking slowly with a stutter at times, and showing clear signs of aging is not masculine to some men. He is seen as a grandpa, not a man’s man. It’s also why Trump and Republicans called him “Sleepy Joe.” It was to make him seem old and incompetent, but also less of a man. 

You are right. Trump is old, too, and the aging process is catching up to him. But he will prove his manhood by being more aggressive. 

Biden didn’t have anything to prove and was comfortable being himself, a loving dad, husband and president, and believed in uplifting women, not berating them.

I think it needs to be said clearly that the macho image is important to Democratic voters as well as Republican voters. This part of the story is what liberals seem eager to ignore for self-interested reasons, as if the entire Democratic Party is a liberal party. It isn’t.

I would say in some respects it’s rhetoric and image for Democratic voters. Biden was not a yeller, but he could get fired up. The “Dark Brandon” persona resonated with many liberals and Democrats in 2022, because they loved it when Biden would get feisty and fought back against the media. It played into his masculinity and toughness. 

Many liberals also like Bernie Sanders, because he says what he thinks, even though he is older than Biden. Truth is, everyone perceives masculinity differently, but ultimately voters like strong men and personalities. At the horrible debate, Biden validated fears of him being too old and unable to perform at a high level when up against another man. He recovered at the end, but the damage was already done. 

Also some didn’t like that Kamala commanded in the debate with Trump. The commentary was very telling, though she clearly won.

In other words, a woman can’t have a commanding presence. Harris was damned if she did, damned if she didn’t. That brings us back to whether the Democrats should nominate a woman. Even if there’s an “open” primary,” as some demand, would that make a difference?

That’s a great question. Part of me wants to believe a woman could win the Democratic nomination in an open primary, and we know one can. But the question is, can that woman build a coalition to beat a man in the general election? I think that is what many will fear in 2028. 

Kamala Harris, Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer and all women considering running will think about this as well. We’ve had two extremely qualified women candidates and neither beat Trump. 

He won’t be on the ballot in 2028, so maybe that changes the calculation. But I agree that it does seem like women are damned if they do, damned if they don’t, but you can’t win if you don’t try. 

Voters may decide a woman has the best shot in 2028 if she acts unapologetically and on her own terms, not on the terms of what strategists, the media and others think she should act. What does a woman have to lose in that situation? It may change people’s minds. 

We shall see.

Join our community today!

Now’s a good time to step up. This scrappy independent newsletter needs you. The media is caving, universities are caving, the Congress is caving. It’s $6 a month. That’s it, but you can save more — 17 percent — with $60 a year. Or hit the tip jar.

Please think about it. Act today.

Thank you! –JS

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE FOR JUST $6 A MONTH!

---

Click here to leave a tip. $10? Thanks!

---