Britain elected Thatcher who had essentially the same politics as Reagan. I suspect that if the genders were reversed they’d have still been elected. Italy elected Giorgio Merloni, a conservative.
I wouldn’t be surprised if conservative women had an advantage- a Queen Elizabeth like mama bear fighting for her people. But leftist women are at a disadvantage because they are weak where they should be strong. A male leftist is free to be an authoritarian ideologue in a way that female leftists cannot.
edit: I should square the circle - leftism is weak in that its the politics of decay and decline, not greatness. Hence the MAGA movement. But it’s also authoritarian, seen most clearly in Europe where people are arrested for social media posts and freedom of speech no longer exists.
Edit 2: “ Harris made strong appeals to women during the campaign but never seemed to do the same for men”
Have we forgotten White Dudes for Harris so quickly?
This is a red herring, akin to questioning whether Americans will ever elect a Black person, pre Obama. Americans would have elected Colin Powell long before Obama, by large margins, but he did not run. His wife wanted him home and she feared assassination.
Americans would have no problem electing a woman, just not the two options offered. Clinton, literally, labeled 1/2 the country racists, homophobes and xenophobes. After she lost the election, completely unprompted, an adult niece labeled Hilary the Aunt every niece or nephew in America will pay money to avoid at Thanksgiving.
Harris may be gone from DC, but her policies and their aftermath permeate Blue states. Toothpaste is locked up like nuclear material and homeless encampments cover sidewalks. Actual decriminalization of theft and de facto decriminalization of drugs were Kamala's CA mission priorities. After she completed them, the ideas spread, like a cancer. How about the billions spent on electric school buses never delivered after payment, or permanently mothballed in school garages because they will not run? Who can forget Kamala ending mass migration, by discovering the root causes?
Kamala was the Queen of horrendous policy, before people considered the fact it is difficult to run the Free World, when one lacks the ability to string together two coherent sentences. We will have a female President, when Americans are presented with a viable female candidate.
Why is it that questions of sexism only arise when a female Democrat loses to a male Republican, but never when a female Republican loses to a male Democrat? I don’t seem to recall any long winded pieces about sexism of the electorate when Obama/Biden defeated McCain/Palin preventing Sarah Palin from becoming the first female VP.
Voters generally vote the top of the Presidential ticket, not the VP nominee. Geraldine Ferraro lost by a landslide to George H. W. Bush but that was because Walter Mondale lost by a landslide to Ronald Reagan. No long-winded pieces about the sexism of the electorate, plenty of long-winded pieces about liberal politics going over a cliff.
My state elected a female governor over her male opponent, which shows our voters are prejudiced against men. Then, they replaced her with a male governor, which shows our voters are prejudiced against women. Meanwhile, they elected a female Senator and re-elected her three times, which shows they are prejudiced against men. It is odd that our sexual prejudice should flip back and forth as frequently as a tossed coin, but if the sex of whom we elect reveals prejudice, this must be a highly unstable form of prejudice.
Is there some reason no one on the left who will compare their candidates to worldwide female leaders? Kamala slept and used her skin color to get where she got. She had no list of accomplishment. Even in CA what one saw was a skilled politician in getting elected but produced nothing for it when she got there. She worked with a president that all the Dems thought walked on water. Yet he had a 70% job disapproval rating and 66% didn't like him personally. And she said she wouldn't do anything different while the ordinary voter's life had turned to crap. Clinton was a bully and a bitch who projected condescension and held many "impressive(?) positions but had no accomplishments. Except to denigrate many as deplores, and you could see she thought she deserved the position. Neither was Thatcher or close to any other successful female leader through out the world. We are told under the Dems we were a global society but believe you can insulate your candidates from such worldwide comparisons. The people of color leaders of the Dems have turned out to be clowns who can only see color and had bad their lives are. Why is Sonny Hostin denigrating the ability of Black American to advanced in society while she sits there being queen idiot? Everything about the Dems is don't believe your eyes, we will tell you. Can you give specific quotes demonstrating Trump's hatred of women? And then list all the strong women he has in his cabinet and other government appointed positions. Biden proved that DEI doesn't hire the qualified, quite then opposite, but the identity. Have you paid any attention to what Ketanji states is her job and what the Constitution means? The best the Dems can hope for is Sotomayor and Kagan shut her up and put her away where no one sees her. Does anyone believe that a Dem president wouldn't appoint more such air heads?
Quite frankly folks, from your world view, all your polls are what are needed to be paid attention to to win. What you seem to have forgotten so soon is that worldview was rejected in Nov. 2024 and no matter how hard you try to compare now to then, it will always come up a loser.
Had Kamala been elected, we would be joining the EU in it's current efforts to control speech worldwide and there would be no free speech any where.
Clinton and Harris were the worst possible women that the Democrats could ever have put up. One carries so much baggage to weigh her down and the other one was just a pure outright idiot. So why don’t you go out on a limb and tell us what woman Democrat right now has a chance to win the 2028 election for presidency
In any case, her, AOC, and other similarly unqualified seem to be the flavor of the month to the farther to the left types. Some in the media would probably talk them up for click or two. But no, not credible.
ahhh, JMan got here first. I was going to say if the US had a Thatcher, we certainly could elect a woman & not think twice. Instead, we have sexist screaming Clinton & Obama (add racist) being uppity - nope, won't have anything at all to do w/ that.
A well done follow-up to the election season article on this subject; and as before, I think the most significant aspect of it is subtly hidden in some of the mentioned research. A particularly salient example is the study cited here that is characterized here as 'optimistic' about the prospects of a woman attaining office.
Looking at the numbers, it seems 'optimistic' can be read as a 'yes' to the answer of 'Would America elect a woman president?'--but a *qualified* yes, not an unequivocal one. And digging deeper into the research, IMO, one can see that that qualifier means that a 'conventional' female candidate couldn't win the presidency. Instead, you'd need a female candidate with some unique qualities; and, looking at elected female heads of state elsewhere, I think ultimately this means pulling off a difficult feat--namely to exude certain qualities coded as conventionally masculine, (toughness, bluntness, directness) while retaining a conventionally coded feminine identity, and doing so *without* coming off as a preachy activist or a scoldy schoolteacher, and without (here's the hard part) making your identity an issue. And it all has to be effortless and authentic, not staged. That's a very difficult tightrope to walk.
I think it was easier to do in the media environment of the 80s, which is why Thatcher was so successful. In the current media environment I'd argue it's far more difficult, because walking the tightrope requires a degree of subtlety that is less attuned to virality--and virality is the only surefire way to get a message out to a mass audience.
Great comment, Minsky. Yeah, I was careful to mention in the piece that there are absolutely still some double standards between male and female candidates in American politics. The broader point I hoped to make is that even if there are more than a few voters for whom these things (e.g., whether a woman is coded as conventionally masculine), I'm not convinced that these voters are the ones deciding elections. And again, we're dealing with a sample size of two when it comes to presidential contests, specifically, so it's hard to draw sweeping conclusions from them. But both women came close to winning—and Clinton arguably did—and you can point to myriad reasons why they lost and why other male candidates may have as well (Biden was setting up for a romp in 2024 before Harris took over, e.g.).
So yes, I agree that gender does absolutely influence how some people vote, but that to me doesn't mean that even conventionally feminine female candidates can't win the presidency in the near future.
I can see that as a coherent way to interpret the evidence that's slightly different than my own take--I'm drawing from what I see in other countries, but ultimately America may be different. (after all, it elected a black man to the presidency before Europe did) Any proper conclusion on the matter has to be tentative, in any case, because of the miniscule sample size you mentioned. There's a long way to go before we have an exhaustive dataset. Regardless, I think the extremely close victory margins of the two samples we do have indicate anyone who says it's not possible *at all* is almost certainly wrong. (And ironically the friends I have who are convinced we will never see a woman elected to the presidency have requested that I refrain from mentioning such reasons for optimism when the subject comes up)
Great post. Michael: you point out the increasing gender divide between the two parties, as well as the sense among young men that the Democratic Party increasingly caters to women, and commits itself to a “feminized” politics and vision. Doesn’t that itself raise questions of how gender shapes perception of the candidate themself, especially if it’s a female candidate for the Democrats?
Fair question! I agree that gender shapes perceptions of candidates (and perhaps even increasingly the parties, too). It arguably always has. I do think the fact that both candidates really leaned into the gender framing in this last election made it more potent in the minds of some voters, including some who opposed Harris. I'm just not convinced that it was the primary reason she lost or that it's an insurmountable obstacle for future female candidates.
So maybe a different way of thinking about this is that gender dynamics do often present an extra barrier for women that most male candidates don't face, but it's also not necessarily so potent as to be decisive in most elections. (I'm sure there's a more rigorous study to be done matching election results with surveys to tease this out more, but that's my reading of the info we have!)
I agree! I’m just trying to reconcile the parts of our politics that seem to be increasingly oriented around gender: the parties, a cultural critique that targets women working outside the home and workplaces that accommodate more collaborative, “feminine” virtues, etc, with a (I think) correct analysis that says a woman candidate can realistically win a national election. Just seems like a weird disconnect. But one way to reconcile is probably just to point out that gender probably matters (in both directions) to a small subset of voters focused on identity issues.
Someone needs to write a book called "What's the Matter With White Liberal Women?" Because they have been voting against their interest by voting for Democrats. The party has some sort of voodoo power. The left has white women believing that promiscuous sex is empowering, that not wanting to be choked during sex is prudish, and that BDSM is a good way for women to work through having an abusive partner.
On the career side, they've got women believing that career is more important than having a family. My high school-aged daughter wants to be a surgeon and I support whatever choice she makes provided it is with informed consent. But she won't be finished her fellowship until she's about 33. For a man that's fine. He can find a beautiful 25 year old woman to marry with the help of a $400k salary. But a 33 year old woman faces a tough marriage market. And residency means working 72 hours a week, which isn't a great time to have children, even assuming she met her husband during her residency.
Can it be done? Yes. Is it far more difficult to have a surgeons's career and a family for a women? Also yes. The left has women playing musical chairs and many women find themselves unmarried cat ladies, not because "they don't need no man" but because they were gaslit by the left about the realities of dating markets and fertility.
Edit:
- men in women's locker rooms, sports, and prisons
- defending Islam and calling its critics "Islamophobic" when Islam is perhaps the most misogynistic worldview ever created.
- defending surrogacy and sex work, which exploit poor women, often brown-skinned. The left has literally made itself the Handmaid's Tale
- and on abortion, aborting babies is in the man's interest. Even Ernest Hemingway realized that a long time ago in his classic, Hills Like White Elephants.
Excellent points, as the single most important, impactful, rewarding and difficult job in the world is being a good mother. Good dads are integral to the proper raising of children, but the job of a mother is harder, in my estimation.
The problem is that no candidate except a woman of color can enter the presidential primaries as a Democrat and at the same time feed the Democratic electorate the medicine they need to get well. Democrats need someone to tip the apple cart over the way Trump did to the Republicans in 16. Democrats need someone they hate who draws broad support amongst voters. A woman of color could trample DEI and post modernism into the dust as it needs to be.
Your point is of course correct; America absolutely will elect a female president when there is a candidate (and Party policy) better than that of the opposition. I think very, very few Americans will refuse to vote for a candidate because she is female (or, for that matter, refuse to vote for a gay candidate).
In spite of her many and well-documented shortcomings as a candidate, as I recall it, it seemed inevitable that Clinton would win, rather than lose, a close election, until James Comey’s actions two weeks before Election Day. In Harris’ case, she was just a very weak candidate that couldn’t manage to improve herself in the eyes of the voters, and who was dragged down by her Party’s litany of terrible ideas (the full woke agenda), in which she was fully complicit. And, as voters correctly perceived, she was fully complicit because it was politically expedient at the time. Who knows what her own convictions actually were, if in fact she held any.
I often try to watch politicians I've never heard of speak, and I turn off my partisian mind, I don't listen to what is being said, I don't' try to understand anything, I only try to feel. Doing so was when I first realized the appeal of Reagan. Obama had the knack, so does Trump to an extent. I saw the same thing in a Black woman I'd never heard of.
Not only did she have "it" that special sauce that allowed her to connect to all audiences, she also had that universal appeal, the type of person everyone likes no matter your politics, no matter your race. I was impressed, I said to myself "this lady could do it" I meant run for national office.
Thinking about it that night I realized it would never happen. The far left would turn her into "The Black Woman", and they did, and now hardly anyone knows her name, she lost that race and has sunk into obscurity. Stacey Abrams.
Britain elected Thatcher who had essentially the same politics as Reagan. I suspect that if the genders were reversed they’d have still been elected. Italy elected Giorgio Merloni, a conservative.
I wouldn’t be surprised if conservative women had an advantage- a Queen Elizabeth like mama bear fighting for her people. But leftist women are at a disadvantage because they are weak where they should be strong. A male leftist is free to be an authoritarian ideologue in a way that female leftists cannot.
edit: I should square the circle - leftism is weak in that its the politics of decay and decline, not greatness. Hence the MAGA movement. But it’s also authoritarian, seen most clearly in Europe where people are arrested for social media posts and freedom of speech no longer exists.
Edit 2: “ Harris made strong appeals to women during the campaign but never seemed to do the same for men”
Have we forgotten White Dudes for Harris so quickly?
This is a red herring, akin to questioning whether Americans will ever elect a Black person, pre Obama. Americans would have elected Colin Powell long before Obama, by large margins, but he did not run. His wife wanted him home and she feared assassination.
Americans would have no problem electing a woman, just not the two options offered. Clinton, literally, labeled 1/2 the country racists, homophobes and xenophobes. After she lost the election, completely unprompted, an adult niece labeled Hilary the Aunt every niece or nephew in America will pay money to avoid at Thanksgiving.
Harris may be gone from DC, but her policies and their aftermath permeate Blue states. Toothpaste is locked up like nuclear material and homeless encampments cover sidewalks. Actual decriminalization of theft and de facto decriminalization of drugs were Kamala's CA mission priorities. After she completed them, the ideas spread, like a cancer. How about the billions spent on electric school buses never delivered after payment, or permanently mothballed in school garages because they will not run? Who can forget Kamala ending mass migration, by discovering the root causes?
Kamala was the Queen of horrendous policy, before people considered the fact it is difficult to run the Free World, when one lacks the ability to string together two coherent sentences. We will have a female President, when Americans are presented with a viable female candidate.
Why is it that questions of sexism only arise when a female Democrat loses to a male Republican, but never when a female Republican loses to a male Democrat? I don’t seem to recall any long winded pieces about sexism of the electorate when Obama/Biden defeated McCain/Palin preventing Sarah Palin from becoming the first female VP.
Voters generally vote the top of the Presidential ticket, not the VP nominee. Geraldine Ferraro lost by a landslide to George H. W. Bush but that was because Walter Mondale lost by a landslide to Ronald Reagan. No long-winded pieces about the sexism of the electorate, plenty of long-winded pieces about liberal politics going over a cliff.
My state elected a female governor over her male opponent, which shows our voters are prejudiced against men. Then, they replaced her with a male governor, which shows our voters are prejudiced against women. Meanwhile, they elected a female Senator and re-elected her three times, which shows they are prejudiced against men. It is odd that our sexual prejudice should flip back and forth as frequently as a tossed coin, but if the sex of whom we elect reveals prejudice, this must be a highly unstable form of prejudice.
Is there some reason no one on the left who will compare their candidates to worldwide female leaders? Kamala slept and used her skin color to get where she got. She had no list of accomplishment. Even in CA what one saw was a skilled politician in getting elected but produced nothing for it when she got there. She worked with a president that all the Dems thought walked on water. Yet he had a 70% job disapproval rating and 66% didn't like him personally. And she said she wouldn't do anything different while the ordinary voter's life had turned to crap. Clinton was a bully and a bitch who projected condescension and held many "impressive(?) positions but had no accomplishments. Except to denigrate many as deplores, and you could see she thought she deserved the position. Neither was Thatcher or close to any other successful female leader through out the world. We are told under the Dems we were a global society but believe you can insulate your candidates from such worldwide comparisons. The people of color leaders of the Dems have turned out to be clowns who can only see color and had bad their lives are. Why is Sonny Hostin denigrating the ability of Black American to advanced in society while she sits there being queen idiot? Everything about the Dems is don't believe your eyes, we will tell you. Can you give specific quotes demonstrating Trump's hatred of women? And then list all the strong women he has in his cabinet and other government appointed positions. Biden proved that DEI doesn't hire the qualified, quite then opposite, but the identity. Have you paid any attention to what Ketanji states is her job and what the Constitution means? The best the Dems can hope for is Sotomayor and Kagan shut her up and put her away where no one sees her. Does anyone believe that a Dem president wouldn't appoint more such air heads?
Quite frankly folks, from your world view, all your polls are what are needed to be paid attention to to win. What you seem to have forgotten so soon is that worldview was rejected in Nov. 2024 and no matter how hard you try to compare now to then, it will always come up a loser.
Had Kamala been elected, we would be joining the EU in it's current efforts to control speech worldwide and there would be no free speech any where.
Clinton and Harris were the worst possible women that the Democrats could ever have put up. One carries so much baggage to weigh her down and the other one was just a pure outright idiot. So why don’t you go out on a limb and tell us what woman Democrat right now has a chance to win the 2028 election for presidency
Yes, the country is past ready, as long as (just as with a male) it's the right person for the job.
Ms. Obama is way to racist and sexist, to be that person.
She's plenty smart enough, IQ wise, just too entitled, and we don't need celebrity politicians in such an important position.
Jasmine Crockett?
You're joking, I hope?
In any case, her, AOC, and other similarly unqualified seem to be the flavor of the month to the farther to the left types. Some in the media would probably talk them up for click or two. But no, not credible.
Yes - a joke.
ahhh, JMan got here first. I was going to say if the US had a Thatcher, we certainly could elect a woman & not think twice. Instead, we have sexist screaming Clinton & Obama (add racist) being uppity - nope, won't have anything at all to do w/ that.
A well done follow-up to the election season article on this subject; and as before, I think the most significant aspect of it is subtly hidden in some of the mentioned research. A particularly salient example is the study cited here that is characterized here as 'optimistic' about the prospects of a woman attaining office.
Looking at the numbers, it seems 'optimistic' can be read as a 'yes' to the answer of 'Would America elect a woman president?'--but a *qualified* yes, not an unequivocal one. And digging deeper into the research, IMO, one can see that that qualifier means that a 'conventional' female candidate couldn't win the presidency. Instead, you'd need a female candidate with some unique qualities; and, looking at elected female heads of state elsewhere, I think ultimately this means pulling off a difficult feat--namely to exude certain qualities coded as conventionally masculine, (toughness, bluntness, directness) while retaining a conventionally coded feminine identity, and doing so *without* coming off as a preachy activist or a scoldy schoolteacher, and without (here's the hard part) making your identity an issue. And it all has to be effortless and authentic, not staged. That's a very difficult tightrope to walk.
I think it was easier to do in the media environment of the 80s, which is why Thatcher was so successful. In the current media environment I'd argue it's far more difficult, because walking the tightrope requires a degree of subtlety that is less attuned to virality--and virality is the only surefire way to get a message out to a mass audience.
Great comment, Minsky. Yeah, I was careful to mention in the piece that there are absolutely still some double standards between male and female candidates in American politics. The broader point I hoped to make is that even if there are more than a few voters for whom these things (e.g., whether a woman is coded as conventionally masculine), I'm not convinced that these voters are the ones deciding elections. And again, we're dealing with a sample size of two when it comes to presidential contests, specifically, so it's hard to draw sweeping conclusions from them. But both women came close to winning—and Clinton arguably did—and you can point to myriad reasons why they lost and why other male candidates may have as well (Biden was setting up for a romp in 2024 before Harris took over, e.g.).
So yes, I agree that gender does absolutely influence how some people vote, but that to me doesn't mean that even conventionally feminine female candidates can't win the presidency in the near future.
I can see that as a coherent way to interpret the evidence that's slightly different than my own take--I'm drawing from what I see in other countries, but ultimately America may be different. (after all, it elected a black man to the presidency before Europe did) Any proper conclusion on the matter has to be tentative, in any case, because of the miniscule sample size you mentioned. There's a long way to go before we have an exhaustive dataset. Regardless, I think the extremely close victory margins of the two samples we do have indicate anyone who says it's not possible *at all* is almost certainly wrong. (And ironically the friends I have who are convinced we will never see a woman elected to the presidency have requested that I refrain from mentioning such reasons for optimism when the subject comes up)
Great post. Michael: you point out the increasing gender divide between the two parties, as well as the sense among young men that the Democratic Party increasingly caters to women, and commits itself to a “feminized” politics and vision. Doesn’t that itself raise questions of how gender shapes perception of the candidate themself, especially if it’s a female candidate for the Democrats?
Fair question! I agree that gender shapes perceptions of candidates (and perhaps even increasingly the parties, too). It arguably always has. I do think the fact that both candidates really leaned into the gender framing in this last election made it more potent in the minds of some voters, including some who opposed Harris. I'm just not convinced that it was the primary reason she lost or that it's an insurmountable obstacle for future female candidates.
So maybe a different way of thinking about this is that gender dynamics do often present an extra barrier for women that most male candidates don't face, but it's also not necessarily so potent as to be decisive in most elections. (I'm sure there's a more rigorous study to be done matching election results with surveys to tease this out more, but that's my reading of the info we have!)
I agree! I’m just trying to reconcile the parts of our politics that seem to be increasingly oriented around gender: the parties, a cultural critique that targets women working outside the home and workplaces that accommodate more collaborative, “feminine” virtues, etc, with a (I think) correct analysis that says a woman candidate can realistically win a national election. Just seems like a weird disconnect. But one way to reconcile is probably just to point out that gender probably matters (in both directions) to a small subset of voters focused on identity issues.
Someone needs to write a book called "What's the Matter With White Liberal Women?" Because they have been voting against their interest by voting for Democrats. The party has some sort of voodoo power. The left has white women believing that promiscuous sex is empowering, that not wanting to be choked during sex is prudish, and that BDSM is a good way for women to work through having an abusive partner.
On the career side, they've got women believing that career is more important than having a family. My high school-aged daughter wants to be a surgeon and I support whatever choice she makes provided it is with informed consent. But she won't be finished her fellowship until she's about 33. For a man that's fine. He can find a beautiful 25 year old woman to marry with the help of a $400k salary. But a 33 year old woman faces a tough marriage market. And residency means working 72 hours a week, which isn't a great time to have children, even assuming she met her husband during her residency.
Can it be done? Yes. Is it far more difficult to have a surgeons's career and a family for a women? Also yes. The left has women playing musical chairs and many women find themselves unmarried cat ladies, not because "they don't need no man" but because they were gaslit by the left about the realities of dating markets and fertility.
Edit:
- men in women's locker rooms, sports, and prisons
- defending Islam and calling its critics "Islamophobic" when Islam is perhaps the most misogynistic worldview ever created.
- defending surrogacy and sex work, which exploit poor women, often brown-skinned. The left has literally made itself the Handmaid's Tale
- and on abortion, aborting babies is in the man's interest. Even Ernest Hemingway realized that a long time ago in his classic, Hills Like White Elephants.
Excellent points, as the single most important, impactful, rewarding and difficult job in the world is being a good mother. Good dads are integral to the proper raising of children, but the job of a mother is harder, in my estimation.
The problem is that no candidate except a woman of color can enter the presidential primaries as a Democrat and at the same time feed the Democratic electorate the medicine they need to get well. Democrats need someone to tip the apple cart over the way Trump did to the Republicans in 16. Democrats need someone they hate who draws broad support amongst voters. A woman of color could trample DEI and post modernism into the dust as it needs to be.
here, here!
If Condoleezza Rice had run, she would have been elected.
Agree, the right woman could become President. America has also proved twice, that the wrong one cannot.
We have been ready for a woman president for a long time, but we haven’t had winning candidates.
Your point is of course correct; America absolutely will elect a female president when there is a candidate (and Party policy) better than that of the opposition. I think very, very few Americans will refuse to vote for a candidate because she is female (or, for that matter, refuse to vote for a gay candidate).
In spite of her many and well-documented shortcomings as a candidate, as I recall it, it seemed inevitable that Clinton would win, rather than lose, a close election, until James Comey’s actions two weeks before Election Day. In Harris’ case, she was just a very weak candidate that couldn’t manage to improve herself in the eyes of the voters, and who was dragged down by her Party’s litany of terrible ideas (the full woke agenda), in which she was fully complicit. And, as voters correctly perceived, she was fully complicit because it was politically expedient at the time. Who knows what her own convictions actually were, if in fact she held any.
I often try to watch politicians I've never heard of speak, and I turn off my partisian mind, I don't listen to what is being said, I don't' try to understand anything, I only try to feel. Doing so was when I first realized the appeal of Reagan. Obama had the knack, so does Trump to an extent. I saw the same thing in a Black woman I'd never heard of.
Not only did she have "it" that special sauce that allowed her to connect to all audiences, she also had that universal appeal, the type of person everyone likes no matter your politics, no matter your race. I was impressed, I said to myself "this lady could do it" I meant run for national office.
Thinking about it that night I realized it would never happen. The far left would turn her into "The Black Woman", and they did, and now hardly anyone knows her name, she lost that race and has sunk into obscurity. Stacey Abrams.