Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

1. Maybe. I am happy to not be testing this hypothesis.

2. I think the problem is inserting women that the voters aren't asking for. They could try asking who to run instead of telling people who to vote for, and they just might get a woman into the office.

There are women out there that have their own real following that could probably get there with the machine behind them, but the machine doesn't want any of them.

Depending on how things go, Tulsi could be the next best chance, if people stop making up shit about her being a Russian asset. But shes on the red team, so the dems will tear her down if she tries.



Regarding (2), I agree, but I don't think the electorate is in for such nuance. Two women failed to win the presidency, and that simple fact is all that matters. I agree with the other commenter that we won't see the dems put another woman up for president for decades, and that's a damn shame.

We might even see the GOP successfully get a woman into the White House before the dems do it, which is just embarrassing.


> We might even see the GOP successfully get a woman into the White House before the dems do it, which is just embarrassing.

That happened in the UK with Thatcher.


Amy Klobuchar is probably the Democrats best example—she just once again significantly outperformed the other national Democratic candidate (Harris) in Minnesota. Personally I wouldn't trust Tulsi Gabbard to win anything. what the Dems need is someone who is a strong political force that has a track record of winning elections and winning over people who voted for Trump. I don't think gender is necessarily important but I do think that the results of Clinton and Harris against Trump should rightfully scare Dems away from that idea going forward.


Tulsi Gabbard is a Republican now; the Democrats won't put her up for anything.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: