When Mehdi Hasan sat down with Jon Stewart last month, the roles were reversed. This time, the Emmy-winning host of The Daily Show was the one asking the questions — about corporate media, Gaza, Do…
I don’t think Clinton’s or Harris’ problems were their genitalia. I think it was that they both were fundamentally bland and uninspiring candidates running bland and uninspiring campaigns against a guy who got his base whipped into a frenzy every time he stepped on stage. They are both immeasurably better-qualified and more well-suited for the office, but Clinton ran on an “it’s business as usual, which means that it’s my turn” platform, and Harris ran on a “let’s get back to business as usual, I’m better than the other guy” platform; and by the time they course-corrected, they had both run out of time.
Harris even had a taste of that base-engaging fervor in the early days of Walz’s selection, when he was going on attack and calling Republicans “weird,” but then her consultants pulled the leash and he brought it back to business as usual.
Would AOC succeed where Clinton or Harris failed? I doubt it. She’s been the subject of a GOP smear campaign for six years now. But it won’t be just because she’s a woman. There’s still a lot of misogyny in the American electorate, of course, but I think it’d honestly account for something like 3-5%. Enough to make a difference in a close race, but not enough to truly sink a good, compelling candidate.
Pretty much agree with everything that you’ve said. The goal is to motivate the base and to galvanize a new wave of voters. You can’t achieve that if you don’t provide anything substantive.
AOC has a major problem she doesn’t have a penis.
I don’t think Clinton’s or Harris’ problems were their genitalia. I think it was that they both were fundamentally bland and uninspiring candidates running bland and uninspiring campaigns against a guy who got his base whipped into a frenzy every time he stepped on stage. They are both immeasurably better-qualified and more well-suited for the office, but Clinton ran on an “it’s business as usual, which means that it’s my turn” platform, and Harris ran on a “let’s get back to business as usual, I’m better than the other guy” platform; and by the time they course-corrected, they had both run out of time.
Harris even had a taste of that base-engaging fervor in the early days of Walz’s selection, when he was going on attack and calling Republicans “weird,” but then her consultants pulled the leash and he brought it back to business as usual.
Would AOC succeed where Clinton or Harris failed? I doubt it. She’s been the subject of a GOP smear campaign for six years now. But it won’t be just because she’s a woman. There’s still a lot of misogyny in the American electorate, of course, but I think it’d honestly account for something like 3-5%. Enough to make a difference in a close race, but not enough to truly sink a good, compelling candidate.
Pretty much agree with everything that you’ve said. The goal is to motivate the base and to galvanize a new wave of voters. You can’t achieve that if you don’t provide anything substantive.