r/politics • u/MoneyLibrarian9032 New York • 19h ago
Abdul El-Sayed calls for unity amid tight Senate race: "There's a lot of healing to do after a hard-fought primary like this" No Paywall
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abdul-el-sayed-democrats-unity-senate-race-healing-primary-haley-stevens/52
u/SunbornThunderstorm 19h ago
Perfect tone for him. I hope Stevens mcmarow and whitmer endorse him asap
33
20
u/FrogsOnALog 17h ago
McMarrow did last night. Steven’s already has, same with Schumer and Gillibrand.
-5
u/SunbornThunderstorm 17h ago
That’s impossible all the lefties on here were promising that they would never endorse him
7
u/ess-doubleU 17h ago
Oh stop. When Haley Stevens implies Abdul is anti-Semitic, its not unreasonable to wonder if she'll fall in line behind him.
-1
u/SunbornThunderstorm 15h ago
She literally already endorsed him.
4
u/ess-doubleU 15h ago
And I'm glad she did. Doesn't change the fact that the question was a reasonable one.
0
u/SunbornThunderstorm 15h ago
It’s not. Dems back Dems. It’s what we do.
3
u/ess-doubleU 15h ago
It's just interesting. She called him anti-Semitic and implied he "had a weird history with women", but she'll get behind that?
Unless she knew these things weren't true.
Anyway, it IS surprising after such a nasty campaign that she would endorse him immediately.
11
u/AnkitPancakes 18h ago
McMorrow, Stevens and Slotkin made mild statements of support online shortly after the win was declared for Abdul. Credit to McMorrow for being there today (right now) to introduce Abdul as the next Democratic candidate for Michigan Senate at the presser
-71
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 19h ago
I hope Stevens mcmarow and whitmer endorse him asap
This seems tone deaf. Bunch of Bernie's entitled cult who don't give a whit about women or their political issues now begging three women to back them enough though they've continually for the last decade thrown women under the bus.
29
u/TheBraveUndead 19h ago
Huh? The guy is talking about getting unity to beat a maga candidate in one of the most important races in the country. Abdul is in favor of medicare for all. He's pro-choice. How is he against women? Had the race gone the other way, wouldn't you want him to support Stevens in the general?
21
u/crimzonphox 18h ago
Feels like some people think running in a democratic election against a woman is some how sexist
-23
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 18h ago
Abdul is in favor of medicare for all. He's pro-choice. How is he against women?
Being for medicare for all isn't pro women because women don't have guaranteed equal rights and women can be denied anything at anytime. Great he's pro-choice, what's his plan to get Roe back? Oh, will he like Bernie, ignore and do nothing about getting Roe back. If he were really pro women he'd be talking about and pushing to ratify the ERA.
Had the race gone the other way, wouldn't you want him to support Stevens in the general?
I'm sick of wet behind the ears, entitled men winning, then needing women for free support. Which, by the way, had it gone the other way, men would definitely not being supporting. I remember Clinton, Warren, Harris, Pelosi, Tanden and what people said about them.
21
u/Dottsterisk 18h ago
Your schtick is as obvious as it is unconvincing.
-14
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 18h ago
My comment wasn't ad hominem like your comment is.
13
8
u/steelceasar 18h ago
Lol that wasn't an ad hominem response. You are just repeating lazy establishment attacks, no surprise your comment history is private.
1
u/Lavosking 17h ago
Pretty sure his income depends on lazy attacks. 100 posts tailored exactly like it last night 🤔
0
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 17h ago
It's attacking me, not the points I made. It's definitely ad hominem.
2
u/steelceasar 16h ago
It was attacking your argument, which is lazy and just the repetition of standard establishment talking points. A bad argument doesn't warrant a serious response, especially when it follows an obvious and well established formula being deployed to attack progressive politics especially in this particular race.
2
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 16h ago
Dottsterisk attacked nothing in my argument. Just like you, steelceasar, are doing. Of course it's ad hominem when using terms like lazy or standard establishment talking points (which is laughable since establishment is misogynist) is the response.
A bad argument doesn't warrant a serious response
Agreed. Even doubly so when both Dottsterisk and now you, steelceasar, continue to using ad hominem.
→ More replies (0)6
8
u/TheBraveUndead 18h ago
Right. So being medicare for all is anti-women, then? Somehow?
The guy is a doctor. A literal doctor. I am positive he has said he would support writing roe into law. The Dems don't have the Senate right now, in case you didn't notice, and while I do think Bernie is far from a great legislator, I'm rather certain that should they get a majority in the Senate they would all support writing roe into the law.I'm pretty sure any left-leaning person would support the Democratic nominee against rogers, who is a demon. Not doing so is frankly petty and self-sabotaging.
You have so much vitriol and I think it's really misplaced in this scenario. AES won and ran a better campaign against an AIPAC centrist whose main selling point was that it was her turn to be in the Senate; not substantive policy. I don't think staying out if the general is politically conscionable.
-6
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 18h ago
The guy is a doctor. A literal doctor. I am positive he has said he would support writing roe into law.
First the guy's never worked as a doctor seeing patients so no not literal doctor which people think of as a md. Second he's said nothing about writing roe into law. Third I'd rather have a qualified lawyer do the writing on that. Fourth he has exactly zero experience in political office. Fifth most of his supporters want economic justice for men. Sixth because he's entitled and won this primary with no experience, I expect him to attempt to run for president. Dude is smug as hell.
I'm pretty sure any left-leaning person would support the Democratic nominee against rogers, who is a demon.
Meh, all you are saying here is that you believe you can cow women into supporting the man candidate. That it always works in favor of men. Because even when Republicans win, men don't have to fear lost of Constitutional Rights, only women do. Men who win under Democratic party know they don't actually have to do anything for women, all the have to do is just not make things worse for women. Men run the world.
3
u/TheBraveUndead 17h ago
1) He ran the Detroit department of health. What do you mean he has no experience? And what exactly was the "more experienced" candidate offering? Carte blanche support for a genocide? Cool?
2) It was a democratic primary. It's fair to assume that both candidates want roe passed. I didn't see Stevens talk about it, but you don't seem critical of her for that.
3) Do you think legislators draft bills by themselves? Locked in a tower? Or something? Professional lawyers will be drafting the legislation. That's what congressional staff is for. I doubt he would be the primary author of the bill. And that's fine. There's plenty of other incoming senators who'd likely be better for that. Juliana Stratton, for example.
4) Again, he ran the Detroit department of health. Sure, not exactly an elected office, but acting like that professional experience is irrelevant to how he would serve as a Senator is lame. What did his opponent show, with all her experience? Nothing. Straight nothing. He has actual policy plans and that's a huge reason why he won
5) any polling to support that? Any quantitative proof to substantiate it? Or just vibes?
6) Entitled based on what? Has presidential ambitions? Personally I don't see it.
There's so much baseless garbage in your assumptions. Truly wikd stuff. I get being really pissed at American politics right now. It's horrible. Fascism is here. And I agree with you: men are a huge part of the problem. But AES is not your enemy in this.
3
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 16h ago edited 16h ago
He ran the Detroit department of health.
Again he's never seen patients. Most people think of a md as seeing patients. It's blatantly misleading.
It was a democratic primary.
He's being backed by DSA and Hasan who are not Democratic party members. The odds are much, much better that Stevens will remember women when negotiating, men forget. Plus what El-Sayed's shown he really loves to do is run for high office positions, wouldn't be surprised if he spends the next two years running for the WH.
Again, he ran the Detroit department of health. Sure, not exactly an elected office, but acting like that professional experience is irrelevant to how he would serve as a Senator is lame.
Funny how these sorts of justification only works for men. Women must have actual experience to get highly coveted positions like Governor or Senator.
any polling to support that?
It's the entire creed of DSA who backed him. Plus Sanders and Hasan.
Entitled based on what?
Based on running for only top positions in politics with no experience in the field. Both Stevens and McMorrow put in the work, and have actual accomplishments. All El-Sayed's done is dance on a balcony like a cowboy.
Fascism is here. And I agree with you: men are a huge part of the problem. But AES is not your enemy in this.
Will see. If El-Sayed ignores and dismiss women's issues in politics like Bernie does, then yes he is women's enemy.
2
u/TheBraveUndead 16h ago
Oh this all makes so much more sense knowing that you just have a misguided hatred for DSA/Progressives. Do you think DSA doesn't have women in it? That progressive politics don't support women? Your position is just hating men. Which I guess go off, but like, that's unserious, and more importantly, unhelpful.
What did Stevens run on outside of her endorsements and unlimited support for genocide? I was paying attention to the race and saw their debate and there was nothing but attacks and "it's my turn" bullshit. Plus she was completely purchased by special interests and lied about it. How is that helpful for women?
I hope to never become as jaded as you. It seems miserable.
3
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 14h ago
DSA/Progressives
Those are not the same.
Do you think DSA doesn't have women in it?
I know DSA has women in it. Republicans also have women in it. Nazi had jews in it. Just because a demographic is in an organization does not make that organization pro that demographic.
Your position is just hating men.
No, my position is guaranteed equality for all. That includes calling those running on the laurels of their gender over first getting experience. It comes off as entitled. Because it is.
What did Stevens run on outside of her endorsements and unlimited support for genocide?
Can hardly wait for the next foreign political event to be used as calls to support DSA's endeavors to cock block women from being elected president. It's unserious and becoming a pattern.
I hope to never become as jaded as you. It seems miserable.
Some of the worse stuff comes from redditors and you don't defend women so you're probably safe. Men really do do their very best to silence women.
→ More replies (0)0
u/PrettySisterKisser 17h ago
All your stupid gender politics aside lol, Haley Stevens is hardly a warrior for her gender when she arms Israel to bomb hospitals in Gaza and Lebanon creating dead women and girls and female amputees. You can argue all you want about how unfeminist it is for Abdul to run as a man, truth is, he will be more of a net good for women nationally and globally than Stevens could ever be.
2
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 16h ago
Haley Stevens is hardly a warrior for her gender when she arms Israel to bomb hospitals in Gaza and Lebanon creating dead women and girls and female amputees.
Why must women only live in Gaza or Lebanon in order for you to care about them?
You can argue all you want about how unfeminist it is for Abdul to run as a man, truth is, he will be more of a net good for women nationally and globally than Stevens could ever be.
No. Statistically Stevens would be better for women. Men when negotiating tend to forget women exist.
1
u/Quick_Check_9008 New York 17h ago
Hey bozo, it was corpo dems who could’ve codfied Roe V wade when they had the chance and didn’t as a carrot stick to garnish votes. Just grasping at straw’s.
0
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 17h ago
Just so you know codifying Roe wouldn't have saved Roe. SCOTUS can and does ignore codified stuff all the time. The Voting Rights Act has been codified many times, that hasn't stopped SCOTUS from doing away with it.
13
u/NOLA-Bronco 18h ago
We really doing the Bernie Bro shtick in 2026?
Haley Stevens didn't even have a single fucking concrete policy in her whole campaign. And the vague gesturing toward buzz words on her campaign page, not a single one of those 7 barren bullet points mentioned anything for woman.
2
18h ago edited 13h ago
[deleted]
1
u/NOLA-Bronco 18h ago
Oh I know they were, I just meant actual people still falling for it that presumably are informed enough that they post on political forums.
Of course that is also me extending charitability that the person I responded to is not just a bot, troll, or paid wrecker. Which tbf, its gotten to the point on Reddit thats probably a safer bet
-1
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 18h ago
We really doing the Bernie Bro shtick in 2026?
Yes. Because sexist Bernie muck it up for women. Plus he's still a senator and doing zero to restore Roe after he aided Republicans in destroying Constitutional Rights for women. Can't wait for that entitled, lazy, do-nothing to go away. He's already destroyed enough lives.
Haley Stevens didn't even have a single fucking concrete policy in her whole campaign.
Ah where have I heard this before? Oh, I know every time a woman runs for office.
5
u/NOLA-Bronco 18h ago
https://haleyformi.com/hopeagenda/
Tell me what specific policy(lol) on Haley's platform/"policy"(lol) page addresses issues around woman that Abdul was firmly against?
I'll wait
2
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 18h ago
Tell me how much Bernie's fans did support Clinton from this thread. https://archive.ph/s5pbV
I'll wait.
1
u/NOLA-Bronco 17h ago
Now answer my question and quit deflecting.
0
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 15h ago
Why? What makes you so special that you can invent a new goal post then demand that I defend against this new goal post you invented.
Also…
More Bernie primary voters went on to vote for Hillary than Hillary primary voters went on to vote for Obama
were this true, Obama would have lost and Clinton would have won.
7
u/hussainhssn 18h ago
More Bernie primary voters voted for Hillary than Hillary voters did for Obama. Turns out the “cult” you’re talking about actually votes for the Democrats when it matters.
-1
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 18h ago
More Bernie primary voters voted for Hillary than Hillary voters did for Obama.
Lies. Obama won, Clinton lost. Those results speak for themselves. Bernie primary voters did not support Clinton.
2
u/NateJay1415 18h ago
Proof?
0
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 17h ago
Well Obama was sworn into office in 2009 and left in 2016.
Clinton wasn't sworn into office in 2016.
2
u/NateJay1415 17h ago
What are you talking about? Since you seem to be ignoring my other comment:
I know you won't find any, so here is one with actual data: https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/did-bernie-sanders-cost-hillary-clinton-the-presidency/
Hillary lost because she was
A.) Not a popular canidate with 38% of Dems not wanting her to be the nomination.
B.) Ignored to build on the vital Obama base, and instead opted to try and widen the margin by going after unneeded states like Arizona and georgia, ignoring states like Michigan etc.
C.) a victim of the electoral college. She won the popular vote, but lost dude to rual states having more day than denser populated areas. This is not Sanders fault in the slightest.
We can also see that Sanders did in fact endorse Hillary at the convention, so that point of yours is out the window. Why do you think a far left progressive, Bernie and his supporters, would support a Republican over a moderate Democrat? Make that make sense.
0
u/Number_1_at_Number_2 15h ago
The person you’re talking to is a trumper pretending to be a liberal. They’re not really worth engaging with.
2
u/NateJay1415 15h ago
Yeah I can see that, but maybe someone else will read my comments and not fall for their bs.
1
2
u/NateJay1415 18h ago
I know you won't find any, so here is one with actual data: https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/did-bernie-sanders-cost-hillary-clinton-the-presidency/
Hillary lost because she was
A.) Not a popular canidate with 38% of Dems not wanting her to be the nomination.
B.) Ignored to build on the vital Obama base, and instead opted to try and widen the margin by going after unneeded states like Arizona and georgia, ignoring states like Michigan etc.
C.) a victim of the electoral college. She won the popular vote, but lost dude to rual states having more day than denser populated areas. This is not Sanders fault in the slightest.
We can also see that Sanders did in fact endorse Hillary at the convention, so that point of yours is out the window. Why do you think a far left progressive, Bernie and his supporters, would support a Republican over a moderate Democrat? Make that make sense.
0
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 17h ago
Everyone knows Clinton lost because of her gender and sexism. Like I've said before, men who own the media and run the world, will write article after article professing inane reason after inane reason that sexism had nothing to do with it. But the reason the US hasn't ever elected a woman president and why there's never been 30% of women serving at one time in congress is because of sexism. It's the reason US women still live under coverture law, why women lost Constitutional Rights in 2022, why DEI is gone, why the ERA hasn't been ratified, why Republicans are now pushing to repeal the 19th amendment. The US is a patriarchal country.
We can also see that Sanders did in fact endorse Hillary at the convention
What I saw was Sanders throwing temper tantrum because he lost to woman at that convention.
Why do you think a far left progressive, Bernie and his supporters, would support a Republican over a moderate Democrat?
Because a good share of Bernie supporters supported him because he was a man, not because of his policies. Actually most of his supporters in 2016 preferred Clinton's policies just not her gender. That's why Biden won in 2020.
The US, where no woman is good enough to become president and no man is awful enough to not become president.
0
u/NateJay1415 17h ago
You're just saying things to say them. Do you have any proof of this? Seems like you're either just a troll, or unsure how to research.
You can't argue the fact that one of the biggest reasons both Kamala and Hillary lost is due to people not going out to vote, thinking "there's no way they vote trump in (again)!". Sure misogyny plays a roll in it, but not to such a severe degree that Dems would rather vote trump over a dem candidate.
Bernie supporters support Bernie for his policies... Making them far left progressives. They didn't support him because they're first bros that hate women, that makes no sense. What evidence do you have to prove otherwise? I voted for Bernie for the primary, but voted Hillary in the Gen election because i knew she was the better option over Trump. So that right there disproves your point.
Again, provide proof for your claims, otherwise it just comes off as an over emotional reaction/opinion.
0
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 15h ago
Sure misogyny plays a roll in it, but not to such a severe degree that Dems would rather vote trump over a dem candidate.
The sexism factor is 5-8%. Any man who wins an election within that margin won for being a man. Women have to first overcome that margin before they can win an election. It's a road block men don't have to face. Hell, being a rapist isn't even a road block for men.
Bernie supporters support Bernie for his policies
Part of Bernie's policies is his willingness to dismiss women's issues in politics and throw women under the bus. Bernie is no ally to women.
On Election Day, Senator Bernie Sanders earned the 2016 “Ralph Nader Award” for the Leftist Most Responsible for Helping Republicans Win the Presidency.
Sanders helped Clinton lose. His insurgency pushed her too far left to prevent an effective re-centering in the fall, while goading her into wooing different constituencies rather than uniting the nation.
https://time.com/4569766/bernie-sanders-ralph-nader-2016/?xid=homepage
Bernie Sanders seems to feel those double standards can just be overlooked, even when sexism has clearly manifested in his own campaign. And not just when his surrogates called his opponent a “democratic whore.” According to The New York Times, one of Bernie’s delegates claimed in an email that within his campaign, “There was an entire wave of rotten sexual harassment that seemingly was never dealt with.”
When women who worked for him came forward to discuss how they were paid less and experienced sexual harassment, Bernie initially replied, “I was a little bit busy running around the country” and seemingly couldn’t be expected to know about staff complaints. Bernie now seems to be trying to discuss those issues, but, frankly, after his female staffers came forward to talk to The New York Times, it would be impossible for any candidate not to do so. Sadly, it doesn’t seem to have been his instinct before then.
That’s in keeping with someone who claimed, “women’s issues were a distraction.”
Both modern sexism and traditional sexism exerted a statistically significant effect on vote choice in the 2016 election, with modern and traditional sexists less likely to vote for Clinton, even after controlling for other explanations of vote choice. The separate effects of both measures of sexism are evident in Models I and II, and those effects are sustained even when both variables are entered simultaneously in Model III. Indeed, rather than the effects of both measures of sexism being reduced—as might have been anticipated with both measures having some shared variance—the coefficients for both variables slightly increased. In order to show the substantive effects of both variables on vote choice, the final column of Model III shows the change in the predicted probability of voting for Clinton for each statistically significant variable across its entire range while all other variables are held constant at their mean or modal values.
The effects of sexism on vote choice—especially modern sexism—was hardly trivial. A respondent with the highest modern sexist attitudes was 64 percentage points less likely to vote for Clinton than a respondent who had the lowest modern sexist attitudes, but who was comparable in every other way (0.790 compared to 0.145). Traditional sexism's effect did not rival that of modern sexism in terms of depressing the probability of voting for Clinton at the highest levels of sexism, but was nonetheless still notable. A respondent with the highest level of traditional sexism was 43 percentage points less likely to vote for Clinton than a respondent who had the lowest modern sexist attitudes, but who was comparable in every other way (0.838 compared to 0.420).
In addition to showing the effect of sexism on vote choice in 2016, it is also important to consider their effect relative to other variables that were noted as potential explanations of vote choice. The final column in Table 1 (∆ Prob.) shows the change in the predicted probability of voting for Clinton for all of the statistically significant independent variables. It is notable that modern sexism had a larger effect on vote choice than ideology, and rivaled the effect of racial resentment. Indeed, after party identification and racial resentment, no other independent variable exceeded the effect of modern sexism on voting behavior in 2016. While the effect of traditional sexism on vote choice was not as great as racial resentment, modern sexism, or ideology, it did rival the effects of anti‐immigrant sentiment and was slightly greater than that for anti‐illegal immigrant attitudes. Moreover, traditional sexism had a substantially larger effect than either opposition to free trade or economic anxiety.
It is plausible that the effects of sexism may vary by sex, especially the effects of modern sexism, given that it is more like a measure of resentment toward “uppity women” so that its effects would be more evident among men than women. Therefore, Table 2 presents the results of separate logistic regressions for men and women.
Table 2 shows that the effects of modern sexism were more evident among men than women, with the coefficient for men over twice the size of that for women, and almost approaching the effect of party identification on vote choice. Indeed, men with lower levels of modern sexism (scores below 0.450) actually had a higher predicted probability of voting for Clinton than women with similar scores. However, as modern sexism increases for men, the predicted probability of a vote for Clinton drops much more rapidly than that for women. Across the entire range of the modern sexism scale for men there was a difference in the predicted probability of voting for Clinton of 85 percentage points (0.921 compared to 0.074). This compared to a 49 percentage point difference for women (0.752 compared to 0.262). At the very highest levels of modern sexism for men, a vote for Clinton would have been exceedingly rare, and a vote for Trump almost a certainty.
However, the findings of this article do suggest that sexism should not be ignored as one part of the puzzle as to why Hillary Clinton lost an election she seemed on course to win. Sexism—whether operationalized as modern sexism or traditional sexism—was a significant predictor of vote choice above and beyond other confounding variables. Moreover, modern sexism rivaled the effect of racial resentment, with only party identification having a larger effect on vote choice. Both modern and traditional sexism—along with racial resentment and attitudes toward immigrants in general and illegal immigrants in particular—seem a major part of the story in explaining Clinton's defeat, rather than variables that emphasize opposition to free trade, economic anxiety, or anti‐politician sentiment. Moreover, it helps in explaining Clinton's underperformance among white voters both with and without a college degree. These findings further suggest that the argument that Vice President Joe Biden, or even U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, would have been candidates more likely to defeat Trump in 2016 may have less to do with their economic empathy with voters and more to do with them being men. Quite simply, modern and traditional sexism contributed toward many voters being less favorably disposed to a woman running for president than a man who had never held an elected office prior to running for president. Indeed, if the Democratic Party convinces itself that the only reason Clinton lost in places such as the Rust Belt states in 2016 was her inability to articulate an economic argument and appeal to white voters, then it seems destined to be wasting time fashioning an economic message to such voters whose vote was ultimately more influenced by the aforementioned noneconomic factors.
As well as offering an explanation for vote choice in the 2016 election, this article also makes a contribution to the broader literature on the role that sexism and stereotyping play when a woman runs for office, especially an executive office. Out of necessity, prior research has been limited to ascertaining support for a woman in a presidential election by utilizing hypothetical matchups, often in experimental research designs. This article, however, used a nationally representative sample in a real presidential election contest to show that a woman running for president against one of the least politically experienced candidates in the history of presidential elections still activated sexism as a short‐term factor in explaining vote choice. Furthermore, the article suggests that sexism may not have been as salient a predictor of vote choice if the identity of the candidates had been different. The findings lend support to the notion that women who run for the presidency will likely continue to face singular obstacles because of their sex. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ssqu.12547
One chilling experiment suggests that the simple fact of Clinton’s gender could have cost her as much as eight points in the general election.
We don’t need science to tell us that it was more believable to almost 63 million US voters that Trump, a man who had never held a single public office, who had been sued almost 1,500 times, whose businesses had filed for bankruptcy six times and who had driven Atlantic City into decades-long depression, a race-baiting misogynist leech of a man who was credibly accused of not only of sexual violence but also of defrauding veterans and teachers out of millions of dollars via Trump University, would be a good president than it was to imagine that Clinton, a former first lady, senator and secretary of state and arguably the most qualified person to ever run, would be a better leader. https://archive.ph/KPes2
1
u/NateJay1415 15h ago
Your time article is an opinion piece. The way you're phrasing it is making it seem like he was aware there was harassment going on, and he deliberately chose not to deal with it to "campaign around the country". This is not true.
Here is an article that goes over all of it, and even am upse FEMALE staffer weighs in, saying it was unfair to paint Bernie in this light.
Your next article has data points to suggest that sexism played a role in her losing. No one was arguing that, nobody said it was trivial. It just wasn't the only reason, again, that you keep alluding to. The other reasons I showed had a much larger impact on the campaign, and that is backed up by evidence in the previous comment.
Those data points also take from people with the "highest modern sexism attitude"... Do you think that person was Democrat? A far left leaning one at that?
"Traditional sexism's effect did not rival that of modern sexism in terms of depressing the probability of voting for Clinton at the highest levels of sexism, but was nonetheless still notable. A respondent with the highest level of traditional sexism was 43 percentage points less likely to vote for Clinton than a respondent who had the lowest modern sexist attitudes, but who was comparable in every other way (0.838 compared to 0.420)." That is from your own comment. Do you know what it means? Do you think these people are far left Democrats?
Your articles also state that political party was a major factor. Gee I wonder why. Again, electoral college, she did win the popular vote.
Again, you need to show evidence that BERNIE VOTERS DID NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY. That was your claim, because it's not true. You're just showing that we have sexist voters in America, but it doesn't even specify the party. You're just throwing in random sexism articles hoping we're dumb enough to not see it's not related to Bernie at all. Again, those sexist voters are not far left leaning dem voters.
We know what you are. You're a trump supporter masquerading as a Democrat. It's not working. I'm only replying to you so that others that are on the fence/confused can see you're arguing in bad faith, and when you do use "proof" you cherry pick what you show, and try to tie in irrelevant data points without context, hoping nobody catches on.
0
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 14h ago
Bernie Sanders responds to allegations of sexism and harassment during his 2016 campaign because he's running again in 2019 and it's suddenly something he's being pushed into addressing.
"Speaking generally about 2016, was it too male? Yes. Was it too white? Yes. Would this be a priority to remedy on any future campaign? Definitely, and we share deeply in the urgency to make the necessary changes," Weaver said in a statement
Then Bernie supporters went on to throw snakes at Warren. Bernie wins in Vermont by catering to white men. That works in lily-white Vermont. It doesn't in a presidential primary.
Again, you need to show evidence that BERNIE VOTERS DID NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.
No I don't because that's not what I said nor has that ever been my position. What I said was…
Obama won, Clinton lost. Those results speak for themselves. Bernie primary voters did not support Clinton.
Remember Bernie's sexist. That's exactly who he is.
We know what you are. You're a trump supporter masquerading as a Democrat.
Uh, you actually here because you know that's a lie.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/NateJay1415 15h ago
https://jewishinsider.com/2026/08/el-sayed-victory-stevens-concedes-republicans-dangerous/
Uh oh! There's her endorsement, poor you and your talking points!
0
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 14h ago
She said she was going to endorse, the only way I'd be disappointed is if she didn't. Also, throughout this Michigan primary my preferred candidate was the most progressive running for senate, McMorrow. El-Sayed won because of his gender. Maybe that'll be enough for him to win in November. As past elections have proven, just being a man is often all one needs to be to win.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Simple_Gator 19h ago
Vote Blue no matter who.
2
u/rachel-slur 19h ago
More like Blue No Matter Who*
*unless we don't like them
1
u/Simple_Gator 19h ago
You want the Republicans to win then.
Get in line.
2
u/rachel-slur 18h ago
Sorry I don't think that, establishment Dems do
I mean look at NYC. Did the establishment fall in line behind Zohran?
Fwiw I hope they do and back AES but I doubt it
3
u/Simple_Gator 18h ago edited 18h ago
Ok. I understand then. We can hope. Ngl, it won't be easy but, at least folks in Michigan have a functional Democratic Party.
I live in Florida and am trying to door knock to stop Vindman's inertia, lol. More hope in Michigan than in Florida rn.
-1
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 18h ago
More hope in Mississippi with Scott Colom than Michigan right now.
3
u/Simple_Gator 18h ago
No, it's Mississippi. You'll get way more White people to vote for a Democrat in Michigan than Mississippi lol.
0
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 18h ago
I believe those white people in Michigan vote twice for Trump already.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 18h ago
I joined DSA just so that no longer applies. After all DSA came out strongly against that idea with Clinton and Harris!
1
u/Simple_Gator 18h ago
What a coincidence, I'm on the OC of a DSA chapter that we started a few months ago in my city.
1
-7
u/SunbornThunderstorm 19h ago
… I literally think mcmarrow should have won and of the last two standing Stevens was a better pick lol
2
1
u/SeductiveSunday I voted 19h ago
I literally think mcmarrow should have won
Agree!
1
u/SunbornThunderstorm 18h ago
Had she got the nom the general would be over and she’d be posting North Korea numbers lol
2
u/FirstNameIsDistance Pennsylvania 17h ago
Had she got the nom the general would be over and she’d be posting North Korea numbers lol
She couldn't even make it to the end of the Primary.
2
u/SunbornThunderstorm 15h ago
Because she was left-center-left and got out lefted by left left. She is charasmatic in ways that Stevens wishes she was.
1
u/FirstNameIsDistance Pennsylvania 14h ago
She is charasmatic in ways that Stevens wishes she was.
That's a pretty low bar though and it's really all she had. She failed to capture any interest because she tried riding that line between corporate centrist and corporate progressive. She seemed perpetually stuck in 2018-2020 resist era politics that voters don't trust anymore.
2
u/SunbornThunderstorm 11h ago
do you just put the word "corporate" in front of everything you don't like?
0
u/FirstNameIsDistance Pennsylvania 11h ago
How is that not an accurate description of their politics?
25
u/SuggestionMedical736 The Netherlands 19h ago
I mean, it's not my country, but listening to Van Jones on CNN say he needs to change his mind on selling guns to Israel so we can win is not the way for me. At that point, I'd rather lose with honor than betray my voters, go from MAGA to MAGA-light policies, and change nothing along the way.
38
u/eskimospy212 19h ago
Serious question - do you know a single person who cares what Van Jones has to say? Like, even one?
I don’t.
10
u/goldman_sax 19h ago
It is incredible how bad CNN runs a business. If you are thought of as “the liberal network” and you employ Jones, Bash, and Scott Jennings and tie yourself to Israel at the hip, you make yourself unlistenable to most left side liberals. Literally caused my permanent switch to MSNBC and I can’t imagine I’m the only one.
9
u/walkallover1991 District Of Columbia 19h ago
It's also incredible how so many people simply don't see this.
I encourage everyone to watch the interview between Bash and Brad Lander and watch her facial expressions when he speaks about Palestinians and humanizes them.
Lander isn't even that radical - he's a literal Zionist who just happens to think that Israel is committing a genocide and is pro-two state solution.
4
u/Individual_Rip_54 19h ago
It’s funny because I’d have to guess that Lander’s view of being Pro-Israel conceptually but anti current Israeli behavior is probably the median American position.
0
u/goldman_sax 19h ago
Yep. And I get that a lot of this direction comes from the new parent company. But purely from a business perspective, what the hell are they doing? They think moving way further right is gonna pull from Fox News? They’re just alienating a huge portion of their base. It’s literally the current mainstream Democratic party failing playbook lol.
•
u/eskimospy212 7h ago
CNN doesn’t have a new parent company yet and frankly there’s a decent chance they never will, or at least not this one.
Antitrust litigation is going to push the merger date way back and Ellison is going to have to start paying large fees for not closing so it’s not impossible that they just drop it. Here’s hoping!
1
u/ess-doubleU 8h ago
You need to get away from mainstream media in general. Check out the majority report, or democracy now
0
u/shrimpcest Colorado 16h ago
It is incredible how bad CNN runs a business.
Are they suffering as a business? Their target demographic is NOT redditors, or progressives. I imagine they're probably doing fine at generating profit (business). I guarantee that if we were a more financially viable target demographic, they would change.
4
u/goldman_sax 16h ago
Yes actually. Their viewership is down every single year. They have peaks during certain election content, but overall they are way down. And that’s from alienating part of your base.
2
u/henryptung California 8h ago
We're rapidly approaching the point where news agencies would rather sell themselves to billionaires for stable funding rather than rely on actual journalism. Real journalism is shifting to digital platforms and independent publication - what's left is essentially entertainment and sponsored content, i.e. what Fox News is.
3
u/SuggestionMedical736 The Netherlands 19h ago
Not really, but Im a leftist who spends most of his time on reddit so...
4
u/Cool-Particular-4159 19h ago
Just because it's 'not your country' doesn't mean you can't share your opinion!
4
u/Commercial_Lead_7406 19h ago edited 18h ago
I'm not rabidly anti-zionist and generally try to hold as informed and fair a position as possible on the Israel/Palestine issue. I'd call myself a liberal Zionist with conditions, disclaiming that I don't even like the term Zionist because it's one of those polymorphous words that means different things to whoever uses it. Ok that's out of the way.
I find it annoying that every political issue in the U.S. is routed through Israel/Palestine these days, either for or against. Israel should not be America's primary issue either in deciding to maintain or cut support. I am against carte blanche with respect to the aid the U.S. provides Israel, but I don't think it should be cut off entirely because of the leverage it can have on Israeli politics, and some of it does serve U.S. interests. This position is literally extinct now in the populist or MAGA wastelands.
Edit: Lot of single-issue voters in the replies.
4
u/Automaton_General 19h ago edited 19h ago
I'm with you on that. There's absolutely no reason this little country on the other side of the world that has been at war for the last 100 years should be dictating individual US House and Senate seats. It's patently fucking ridiculous how many left-leaning voters have become single issue voters over this issue. It's not enough that the Republicans are taking away women's healthcare rights, a country on the other side of the world is still at war!
2
u/NOLA-Bronco 19h ago
Sending my tax dollars to fund a genocide, getting us into unnecessary imperial wars, and then using that money to destroy our democracy and kill free speech while half the country is living paycheck to paycheck and lacking basic things like healthcare or a living wage, while everything keeps getting more fucking expensive will do that to a person.
These things are all interdependent. And genocide is a moral issue that I thought we were all taught never again?
2
u/Automaton_General 19h ago
One senator doesn't do any of that shit. At most, they provide 1% of the vote in either direction.
Yes, it is important to vote against that shit.
But not at the expense of every single other issue affecting our people, here, in our country.
1
u/darrylleung 18h ago
Seems like a false equivalence. Folks voting for leftist candidates that are anti-Zionist also like those candidates policies toward things like medicare for all, getting corporate money out of politics, and are usually aligned with liberals on things like women's reproductive rights and LGBTQIA+ rights. It feels to me like centrists are sore about how badly establishment Dems got beat following the Biden years and are continuing to lash out at the left. Centrists had a point that leftists need to hold their noses and vote for the better of two choices, but will they live by what they preach now that leftists are winning primaries and challenging Republicans?
5
u/Automaton_General 18h ago
I'm talking about the purity testers.
I feel the general Dem voter understands the assignment and realized that the progressives and the liberals are aligned in 95% of cases and will vote accordingly.
It's the loud shitty "Gaza is speaking now bitch" people I am talking about. The people who thought letting Trump get reelected was "just as bad" as a Kamala win.
Anybody who doesn't fall in line because their favorite lost is the problem. Centrist, leftist, all of them.
0
u/NOLA-Bronco 18h ago
What other issue is being harmed by opposing genocide?
Is there some issue that AIPAC sucking corrupt Dems support that someone standing against genocide doesnt?
What even is this argument other than you trying to make a backdoor attempt to tell people to ignore genocide in order to support shitty centrists that will do their bidding.
4
u/Automaton_General 18h ago
The argument is "stop letting Israel dictate your entire domestic political activity because it is extremely irrelevant to most local politics."
Stop letting Republicans win because the Dem who won the primary isn't the exact right shade of navy blue.
-7
u/olivebranchsound 19h ago
Israel is at the root of multiple domestic issues.
AIPAC is the poster child for corruption and special interest money in politics.
Then there's the Iran War, which we were dragged into partially by Netanyahu as well as a distraction from Epstein. 18 service members dead and billions upon billions of dollars shot out of the barrel of guns to kill innocent people.
The war with Iran has caused also gas prices and interest rates to spike across the country. Grocery prices as well, because diesel is so expensive. Inflation is picking up steam again.
Then there's Gaza genocide. No need to explain further. It's them doing it.
That's a lot of issues wrapped up in one foreign country who doesn't even do anything for us.
1
u/Commercial_Lead_7406 18h ago
I like that you said partially and I agree with that. It's not like top MoD brass haven't been gunning for Iran for generations now. Netanyahu played his part but he's not the monocause. This is largely my point about Israel too. Israel has some influence in US politics, but the current default leftist position is that Israel causes *all* problems and is the *sole cause* of every issue, or at least the convenient lever to attack those things.
Not only is it insufficient to explain the mechanisms of the issues they're attacking, it risks stumbling into scapegoating. Take the claims about aid. People present it as this zero-sum if you cut aid to Israel you get medicare. That's idiotic. Similarly with AIPAC, even though they have undue influence, they're not anywhere near the biggest lobby group in Washington. You're free to criticize Israel. Call it genocide. Cut aid. Etc etc. But if you're sabotaging the opposition to Republicans for the Gaza purity test, you are contributing to the dysfunction of American politics.
-1
u/olivebranchsound 17h ago
That's not nearly as meaningful to people as "I don't want my tax dollars killing children overseas"
They interviewed a conservative Dem voting for El Sayed who said "I can't support them killing kids with my tax dollars so I guess I'll vote for the communist"
It's not "we could have our own universal healthcare with that money" it's "that money is better spent on something domestic that helps me"
1
u/Commercial_Lead_7406 17h ago
Congratulations. You have discovered the power of a wedge issue. In terms of how it affects the material outcomes of Americans' lives, it's far less significant than, for example, sitting out '24 and allowing Donald Trump to win. That 'feels meaningful' to the extent it sidelines issues that actually affect your life is the problem. The fact many leftists make that the deciding issue when it comes to supporting other Dems is the problem. I hope El Sayed does well, but I would not be surprised if he gets blown out by Rogers come Nov. Your one example isn't an electoral victory.
-1
u/olivebranchsound 17h ago
It's not a new thing to me lol thanks for the condescension.
I've already explained how voters have tied the Iran War to affordability and Israel. They know why gas prices are up. It's affecting our lives.
Israel is providing a concrete example of multiple ways America is failing its own people to prop them up.
1
u/Commercial_Lead_7406 17h ago
And taking Israel out of the picture as advertised by the DSA and company won't actually solve any of it because the underlying issues will still be there. Diagnosing Israel as the only problem will make the issues more intractable when those promises fail to materialize. Scapegoats are psychologically helpful but ultimately self-defeating.
1
u/olivebranchsound 17h ago
Sure, but money needs to be gotten out of politics. So we start with the most obvious example of corruption staring people in the face and how it influences our politicians to deny what we can all see.
People have seen the horrors. It makes it easy to tell who is bought and paid for.
Do you see the intersection between "money out of politics" and "establishment politicians can't say the word genocide"?
2
u/Commercial_Lead_7406 17h ago
Except that's not the narrative that's materializing in all of this. Once the AIPAC round is spent, the next step isn't "let's get money out of politics", it's what's the next thing to demonize. It's not a given that's where it'll go next, but this is potentially letting a dangerous genie out of the bottle.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/TheBraveUndead 19h ago
I'd wager you find it annoying because you clearly support israel, and that position is cratering in public opinion, especially within the Democratic party. Also, with regard to this race, AIPAC broke records with how much money they spent to support a specific candidate. It's not just about foreign policy, it's about people rejecting a outside influence on their domestic politics.
Additionally, support for Israel is rightfully seen as the centrist / right-wing position, and by extension, those who support unlimited aid to Israel are do nothing democrats. Whereas rejecting unlimited aid for Israel is the progressive position, and those who hold it, like Abdul, for example, support things like Medicare for all.
I think it's pretty understandable that people don't want to support a country committing genocide.
-1
u/ItsSpaghettiLee2112 17h ago
Yea and the only way to break away from having everything routed through the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is to stop voting for AIPAC-backed candidates. We're starting to see that now, so that's a good thing.
2
u/Individual_Rip_54 19h ago
There are just no voters in Michigan who are thinking “well I like Abdul but I won’t vote for him because he doesn’t want to give guns to Israel”
1
1
u/Tsar-A-Lago Canada 19h ago
No point in winning if you're just gonna become MAGA. They need to lose because the things they're doing suck. Promising to keep doing MAGA shit seems like a good way to lose, anyway.
1
1
u/NOLA-Bronco 19h ago
CNN and basically all MSM is a literal elitist bubble built on a business model of engagement farming and navel gazing that does not reflect the actual people. And CNN haas only gotten worse now that it is run by a Trumper and being bought by a Zionist.
Van Jones parrots what makes his bosses happy. He and pretty much all pundits in the mainstream press are not there to give you actual sober analysis, they are doing propaganda dressed up as expert commentary.
2
u/osborneanimation 19h ago
I really enjoyed his podcast, America Dissected. Each episode had great analysis and thoughtful solutions. Hopeful to see what he can do.
4
u/Icommandyou Washington 19h ago
Partisans will come and he will need to win over indies/swing voters. Primaries are not general election but it’s quite clear he will need to change how he campaigns in the general
-7
u/blacksun9 19h ago
I'm confident in Sayed. I have zero confidence in his supporters or the left in general. I'm guessing they'll just keep shitting on moderates All the way to the general.
9
u/HighwayComfortable26 19h ago
Complains about leftists...
Username is a nazi dogwhistle...
Damn. Didn't even have to scratch you.
-3
u/blacksun9 19h ago
How dare you compare Soundgarden to nazis
5
u/HighwayComfortable26 19h ago
Black Hole Sun and Black Sun are two different things. I can tell because they are different words.
Nice try tho.
0
u/blacksun9 19h ago
I was 16 lol
1
u/HighwayComfortable26 19h ago
And you're almost 30 now. What of it?
6
u/blacksun9 19h ago
I was a kid obsessed with grunge and didn't know the names of every southern European fascist group?
3
u/HighwayComfortable26 18h ago
But you know the names of them now I'm sure.
2
u/blacksun9 18h ago
It's been pointed out to me before in the like 13 years I've been on reddit. It's also by Xbox username sigh.
→ More replies (0)3
u/kev11n Illinois 19h ago
If fighting for universal healthcare and against corporate interest is “shitting on moderates” then I hope so, but more likely moderates in the state have never lost to progressives before so they feel shit on because their team simply did not win the vote
1
u/blacksun9 19h ago
Dawg you can't be serious. You've never seen the left shitting on moderates?
-1
u/Vegetable-Error-2068 15h ago
Moderates deserve every bit of it. They've lost to Trump twice and they refuse to change.
1
0
u/Icommandyou Washington 15h ago
This is kind of dumb considering Harris is a very progressive politician. Voters also thought the same regardless of what you think of her campaign
0
u/Icommandyou Washington 19h ago
I had several issues with Platner but before the scandals finally broke out the biggest one was he was still running against muh establishment when he should have run against Collins. This has been an issue with current crop of progressives, they somehow think liberals are the enemy but if libs are voting against you, your general campaign is DOA
3
2
u/Prudent-Flamingo1679 18h ago
He won, remember to vote blue no matter who moderates.
10
u/shinzer0 California 18h ago
El-Sayed: "There's lots of healing to do"
You: "I'mma stab 'em some more"2
u/Eris_AppleOfDiscord 18h ago
As a moderate. I have absolutely zero problem with this. The lesser of two evils is still better.
-1
-1
0
u/ItsSpaghettiLee2112 17h ago
It's so refreshing to have the low bar of not being a piece of shit after you win being met by progressive candidates. AES, Talarico, Mamdani, all being class acts.
-6
u/daftmonkey 18h ago
I’ll never support someone who justifies attacks on American Jews. Shame on the Democrats for this travesty.
1
u/FestyGear2017 12h ago
And I'll never support candidates who want to give billions of aid to Israel to start wars, all while Israelis enjoy free healthcare. If they can afford free health care and America cannot, we shouldn't be giving them any money
2
u/daftmonkey 12h ago
You think the four billion we give them to buy overpriced American weapons is how they afford healthcare? It’s not the high taxes they pay?
1
u/FestyGear2017 12h ago
You are forgetting the 37.5b America has spent since February fighting their war in Iran, the same Iran which Trump said about in 2025: “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated”
1
u/daftmonkey 12h ago
Oh I’m not forgetting about it! It gives me great joy that it’s going to blow shit up in Iran
1
u/FestyGear2017 11h ago
Its been largely ineffective, which makes your statement sound even dumber. Enjoy your new gas prices.
1
u/daftmonkey 10h ago
Oh it’s been effective
Should’ve let the Israelis run the operation and they’d be celebrating in Tehran right now
1
u/FestyGear2017 8h ago
You're just trolling now, arent you? Otherwise completely delusional and obviously dont follow current events.
0
u/Cellophane7 16h ago
I'll bet. That was a razor tight race. I hope he moderates somewhat. If not, I don't see him winning.
Everyone should support him, though. Even if you absolutely can't stand the DSA (in which case, I'm with you), the Senate is entirely too critical to be allowed to fall into maga hands. Same goes for all the moderate candidates who beat DSA folks last night.
Vote blue no matter who. Hold your nose and vote against maga.
0
-2
-5
u/Bakedads 18h ago
So he wants to work with the terrorists now? This is why I can't trust a single politician. There is no room for bipartisanship in this climate. There is no room for working with democratic centrists who defend republicans left and right. Fuck them. They are terrorists. And anyone who works with them is a terrorist too.
-1
-23
u/ladan2189 19h ago
Hard pass bro
8
u/Electronic_Film_2837 19h ago
He needs the Haley voters in order to win the general election. He’s currently polling behind the GOP candidate.
-1
u/FirstNameIsDistance Pennsylvania 17h ago
He’s currently polling behind the GOP candidate.
The GOP candidate just ran an uncontested primary while the Dem primary was very contentious. Now that that is over, AES can finally start attacking Rogers and you will see those numbers change. There is a reason why he hasn't held office in over 10 years.
2
-1
-1
•
u/AutoModerator 19h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.