Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said Sunday she will stop using “toxic” rhetoric, marking what would be a dramatic shift in a political brand hallmarked by derogatory comments.
I just saw a quote from Michelle Obama, along the lines of the US isn’t ready for a woman president. MO might be correct, so yeah let’s have MTG run for pres. to dilute the GOP votes.
I just saw a quote from Michelle Obama, along the lines of the US isn’t ready for a woman president
Probably just making excuses for why the awful candidate her husband helped force onto the ballot failed at the most winnable presidential election since the two previous ones.
Hey dont push it, a Greene-Fuentes ticket probably would beat Newsom-Buttigieg, definitely would win against Harris and whatever cursed soul she picks as a running mate
I think enough of the MAGA base is incapable of voting for a woman that she starts in a pretty deep hole even within her party. I don’t see her getting the nomination, and if she does I see her struggling to inspire turnout in the general. Sexism impacted both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, and will be even harder for a GOP candidate to overcome.
If that is what you think, you are 40years and 2 steps behind. Misogynistic rhetoric hasn’t been en vogue since the 80’s, and if you think Hillary or Kamala lost only because they were women, you really don’t have anything useful to say and instead are leaning on the trope of “common wisdom.”
There’s literally a movement within MAGA to repeal the right of women to vote. Yes, I absolutely believe that the misogyny is present in today’s GOP. Further, multiple polls and other research studies have found that a significant number of voters in the US does not support the idea of a woman for president. Here are a few references:
And if you combine her observation with the GOP views on women as president reflected in this pew research poll (notably “Republicans (86%) are twice as likely as Democrats (43%) to say it is not at all or not too important if they ever see a woman elected U.S. president”), I think there’s ample reason to believe that a Republican candidate for president would struggle to gain support from a statistically relevant group of voters.
And no, I do not think that Clinton And Harris lost only because they’re women. I did not say that at. Evidence suggests that misogyny was one of many factors, though.
Sexism impacted both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, and will be even harder for a GOP candidate to overcome.
What with the hypocrisy and shifting goalposts for MAGA/GOP types, a female Trump 2.0 would seem quite plausible to my eyes. These types don’t care for conserving anything in particular nor for standing up afor any fixed set of values. They are, quite literally going along with the flow.
She’s looking at the next election.
Run for prez…
Senate. She wants a Senate seat, and Trump wouldn’t endorse her due to the fact she’s been constantly wanting to release the Epstein files.
Granted, I don’t think she believed that Trump was in the files, until he went ape shit about it.
She worshiped Trump, and still holds all the ridiculous and evil beliefs from before, but now her god has betrayed her.
And I say good.
Trump is likely going down, with or without her, so I say without.
I just saw a quote from Michelle Obama, along the lines of the US isn’t ready for a woman president. MO might be correct, so yeah let’s have MTG run for pres. to dilute the GOP votes.
Probably just making excuses for why the awful candidate her husband helped force onto the ballot failed at the most winnable presidential election since the two previous ones.
Hey dont push it, a Greene-Fuentes ticket probably would beat Newsom-Buttigieg, definitely would win against Harris and whatever cursed soul she picks as a running mate
deleted by creator
I think enough of the MAGA base is incapable of voting for a woman that she starts in a pretty deep hole even within her party. I don’t see her getting the nomination, and if she does I see her struggling to inspire turnout in the general. Sexism impacted both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, and will be even harder for a GOP candidate to overcome.
If that is what you think, you are 40years and 2 steps behind. Misogynistic rhetoric hasn’t been en vogue since the 80’s, and if you think Hillary or Kamala lost only because they were women, you really don’t have anything useful to say and instead are leaning on the trope of “common wisdom.”
There’s literally a movement within MAGA to repeal the right of women to vote. Yes, I absolutely believe that the misogyny is present in today’s GOP. Further, multiple polls and other research studies have found that a significant number of voters in the US does not support the idea of a woman for president. Here are a few references:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X251369844
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4782780-americansready-female-president-dipping-survey/
Anecdotally, Michelle Obama recently observed the same thing: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5607777-michelle-obama-us-not-ready-woman-president/
And if you combine her observation with the GOP views on women as president reflected in this pew research poll (notably “Republicans (86%) are twice as likely as Democrats (43%) to say it is not at all or not too important if they ever see a woman elected U.S. president”), I think there’s ample reason to believe that a Republican candidate for president would struggle to gain support from a statistically relevant group of voters.
And no, I do not think that Clinton And Harris lost only because they’re women. I did not say that at. Evidence suggests that misogyny was one of many factors, though.
What with the hypocrisy and shifting goalposts for MAGA/GOP types, a female Trump 2.0 would seem quite plausible to my eyes. These types don’t care for conserving anything in particular nor for standing up afor any fixed set of values. They are, quite literally going along with the flow.
She’ll fool enough people to have a good chance of keeping her seat at least