Elizabeth Warren

Sexism Didn't Kill the Warren Campaign. The Warren Campaign Killed the Warren Campaign.

Warren’s supporters were so enamored with her righteousness that they struggled to see her obvious flaws.

|

Even before Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) announced on Thursday that she is ending her campaign for president, her supporters began offering a simple one-word explanation for her failure to win a single primary race, much less the Democratic nomination: sexism. And if it wasn't that, it could only be sexism's even more evil twin: misogyny.

The feeling is nicely summed up by Jason Stanley, professor of philosophy at Yale and author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. "To repeat the obvious: there is no other explanation except for misogyny for what has happened to Senator Warren this year," Stanley tweeted after Warren suffered across-the-board losses on Super Tuesday. He called this "profoundly depressing."

This feeling was mirrored by feminist writer Jessica Valenti, who wrote in an essay that Warren had been "outright erased and ignored" by both media and voters. "Don't tell me this isn't about sexism," Valenti wrote. "I've been around too long for that." Sure, Warren may have been the most exhaustively covered female candidate since Hillary Clinton, and she may have one of the biggest war chests in the race, and she may have had among the most stage time at the debates, but still! She lost. The only explanation is that she's been systematically ignored and erased.

The candidate herself addressed the issue of sexism at a press conference outside her home Thursday, when a reporter asked about the role gender (née "sex") played in the campaign.

"Gender in this race?" Warren said. "You know, that's the trap question for everyone. If you say, 'Yeah, there was sexism in this race,' everyone says, 'Whiner!' If you say there was no sexism, about a bazillion women think, 'What planet do you live on?'" 

I live on the planet where the Democratic electorate chose a woman to be their candidate in 2016—and where that same woman won the popular vote. I suppose it's possible that the last four years of President Donald Trump have turned Democrats more sexist than they were before, but did that just temporarily stop for the several months Warren was at the top of the polls before Democrats realized they actually don't want a woman after all? I doubt it.

At the same time, I find it curious that while Warren's campaign was apparently cut down by sexism and/or misogyny, when other female candidates in the race dropped out, sexism didn't often come up. One would assume that all female candidates would be subject to the same systemic prejudice, and yet few people claim that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) or Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) have failed—or, in Gabbard's case, will fail—because American voters hate women. 

When it comes to Gabbard or Klobuchar or the men in the race, people evaluate their campaigns and generally determine it's the candidate, not the voter, who is at fault. Gabbard isn't losing because of sexism, she's losing because she's a fill-in-the-blank homophobe/cult follower/Bashar Assad apologist. Klobuchar wasn't a victim of misogyny, she was an uninspiring candidate who abuses her staff and eats her salads with a comb if she can't find a fork (a quality I personally find highly electable). 

So why is Warren's loss called sexist when Klobuchar's was not? When I asked this question on Twitter, a number of people answered something along the lines of "because she is really a man"—a great example of actual sexism. But I think the answer is something else: Warren's followers are both primed to see sexism everywhere and so enamored with their candidate—so sure of her (and their own) righteousness—that they are unable to see any of the flaws that are so apparent to anyone outside their bubble.

Ironically, this tendency to blame all of Warren's failings on sexism comes across as somewhat…sexist. Every time she loses, she is portrayed by some of her most ardent defenders as a victim, as though she has no control over her own campaign or her own choices. It's not just infantilizing and patronizing, but it also removes agency and responsibility from the candidate herself. And yet, claims that "sexism did it" are repeated so often they're taken as a fact, even when no evidence is offered to support them. 

Some people seem to think it's just obvious: If a man with Warren's qualifications, intellect, and talent ran for office, he would have won. That may be true, although the results of the last election make me fear that qualifications, intellect, and talent don't matter all that much in American politics. So here's an alternate explanation: Elizabeth Warren didn't lose this race simply because of sexism but because she made a series of political miscalculations, starting with the disastrous unveiling of her DNA test, which managed to anger progressives and make conservatives point and laugh. Then there was her refusal to go on the most popular cable news network in America in order to make a political point, the condescending manner in which she spoke about voters she disagreed with, her bungled Medicare for All plan, and the fact that she positioned herself to split the progressive vote with Bernie Sanders—a candidate with grassroots momentum and a campaign that has been ongoing since 2015. Had she pitched herself as a capable, qualified, less ancient, and more moderate Democrat instead of Bernie Lite, it's possible it would be her running against him right now instead of Joe Biden. 

Unlike most Reason readers, I was a Warren fan before this campaign—such a Warren fan, in fact, that six months before Trump was elected, I made a bet that Clinton would lose and Warren would be the first female president. But then she pivoted from the reformer who went after banks and stood up for the consumer into the sort of social media justice warrior who thinks she speaks for marginalized people while actually speaking over them. Despite this ill-advised rebranding, she still had plenty of ideas that I liked, from universal preschool to boosting small business to ending for-profit prisons and getting rid of the Electoral College. But her good ideas were too easily overshadowed by her bad ones. 

Take, for instance, the LGBTQ town hall (which was a bad idea in the first place). Warren was asked by a 9-year-old trans boy named Jacob what she, as president, would do to keep kids like him safe. Instead of telling him the truth ("Jacob, bullying is sort of a local issue but I recommend a kickboxing class"), she said that she would let this 9-year-old kid vet the next secretary of education. This may have played well in that room, but she wasn't running to be the president of the Gay-Straight Alliance; she was running to be president of the United States.

Now, I don't think she actually would have marched Jacob into the Senate confirmation hearings any more than I think she would have passed Medicare of All with or without raising taxes. She was just pandering, and I don't really fault her for that—pandering is part of campaigning and all politicians do it—but it doesn't matter whether or not she would have actually let a third grader veto her cabinet picks. What matters is that she said it on live television, and had she won the nomination, it would have come back to bite her in the ass in the general election. There were a mountain of moments like this, and against Trump she would not have stood a chance.

Warren could have focused on the working class; instead, she focused on the wokest class. She advocated for social positions that may resonate with highly educated, largely white activists but just don't appeal to a broad base of Americans across race and class. She talked about nonbinary driver's licenses and advocated for trans women to play women's sports and used the term "traffic violence" when the rest of us simply say "car crash." She's out of touch—or at least, her advisers are—and there aren't enough Oberlin grads for her to win Ohio, much less the swing states that will likely determine the outcome of the 2020 race. So here's why I didn't vote for Elizabeth Warren: because she would have given us four more years of Trump. That isn't sexism; it's math.

Advertisement

NEXT: A Mississippi Woman Gave Diet Advice Without a License. The State Threatened To Throw Her in Jail.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This feeling was mirrored by feminist writer Jessica Valenti, who wrote in an essay that Warren had been “outright erased and ignored” by both media and voters. “Don’t tell me this isn’t about sexism,” Valenti wrote. “I’ve been around too long for that.”

    That’s some serious gaslighting. The media was 100% in the tank for Warren. The debate where she made her accusations of sexism is Exhibit A.

    1. It also sounds like, along with the rest of the media, they’ve never heard of Tulsi Gabbard.

      1. There is no Tulsi Gabbard, there is only a Russian Spy using that alias.

        1. Her real name is Tulsinia Gabbardovski.

          1. She gets my Morning Wood … er … vote.

    2. CNN rather nakedly supports her sexism attack on Sanders. That they bungled it because Sanders refused to play that game does not mean CNN was not in the tank for her.

    3. yeah, I noticed that too. The Vegas debate where she ripped Bloomberg apart gave her way more time then it would have if it was only considering her place in the race, meanwhile Biden was desperately trying to remind people he existed that entire night.

      1. I think ripping Bloomberg apart was the best thing she did in the entire race. He didn’t end up buying the nomination, but he could have been a lot closer if she didn’t remind people about his “stop and frisk” policies and “horse faced lesbian” comments. People should know who they are voting for. Bloomberg’s ads did not show the whole picture. Everyone knew that Warren put “native American” on her nationality check-boxes. Everyone knew that Biden let his son take a job with lots of $$ in order to gain influence. People now know that Bernie made exuses for Castro. It was good that they knew what Bloomberg is, outside of his ads, as well.

        1. I think ripping Bloomberg apart was the best thing she did in the entire race.

          I have to agree with you on that, but it’s kind of like Stalin ordering Trotsky murdered. Scum vs. scum, and we REALLY want them to both end up dead on the ground after tearing out each other’s throats.

          -jcr

      2. I think the media vastly overrated the significance of debates.

        There are plenty of other ways to find out what a candidate is about.

        “Performance” on the stage doesn’t correlate to effectiveness as an executive, and maybe voters are figuring that out.

        1. No, but sometimes it’s indicative. I’m thinking of Ronald Reagan saying, “There you go again,” to Jimmy Carter.

    4. This response from Sen. Warren and her staff and reinforced by liberal academics and media is just one more validation of what Libertarians and Republicans think of Democrats. Democrats are the true intellectual fascists, misogynists, sexists and homophobes in the USA. Ignorant of any factual arguement. Cacophony is their best foot forward in all things followed by a few frivolous law suits, and out pops new law. Smoke, mirrors and denial blended with hate filled rhetoric has worked for them forever.

    5. All primary races are “I’m good and they are bad.” Instead of stating what they really stand for, most politicians try to bend their message to what they think the voters want. In short they are not really committed to those ideas, they are just saying it to get elected. If they win, their enthusiasm naturally wanes and their efforts to get those things done are half hearted. Maybe if they just told the truth, they’d do better. People can smell fertilizer. Plus they would Not have to defend or explain or apologize for previous statements when the supported the opposite position.

      1. This leaves me very confused: “So here’s why I didn’t vote for Elizabeth Warren: because she would have given us four more years of Trump.”

        So i should have voted for Warren instead of Sanders?

        1. Apparently, they let Democrats with TDS write for Reason, now. Trump obviously isn’t the ideal Libertarian candidate, but he’s definitely a better choice than Biden, or, Odin forbid, Comrade Sanders.

          1. Trump was elected by people who voted against Hillary, not people who chose Trump. The author is obviously concerned that Warren may have devolved into Hillary 2.0, leading to four more years of lawlessness, cruelty, and incompetence. Maybe, just maybe, Trump’s many tweeted asides (“in my great and unmatched wisdom,” “very stable genius”) were examples of self-deprecating humor. And maybe unicorns will bring Detroit back to prosperity. Trump is the antithesis of libertarianism, because he is entirely incapable of concern for anything other than himself.

            1. Just try to keep your focus, Jim, and quit spouting the BS while your libertarian party keeps coughing up idiots as candidates. Seriously, Gary Johnson and then the 2020 open boarders clowns???

    6. How arrogant can a Democrat be? You lost because you were a woman? Nope, you lost because you are a trillion miles away from having the skills, decency, and experience to be president. The same was true of HIllary, etc.

  2. Jason Stanley, professor of philosophy at Yale and author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them

    So in theory, this guy knows what fascism is. And yet…

    1. He wrote a book that was published by some folks who’d like to redefine the term.

      1. And the glowing reviews are from people who think that nobody knows what the term actually means.

    2. I have a feeling that mr Stanley finds a lot of things in life “profoundly depressing”.

      Haha. That sucks.

    3. This guy is a professor of philosophy at Yale, and his argument for sexism is “come on guys, it’s obvious.”

  3. So Tulsi is homophobic, loves Assad, and belongs to a cult? Not because she is the most articulate anti war candidate since Ron Paul and the DNC hates her for it?

    1. Nothing can stand against the bipartisan war machine.

      1. In the fields, the bodies burning. As the bipartisan war machine keeps turning. Death and hatred to mankind; poisoning their brainwashed minds. Oh lord, yeah!!!

        1. Think of all the hate there is in Afghanistan!
          Then take a look around to DC, Washington!
          Ah, you may leave here, for cyberspace,
          But when your return, it’s the same old place,
          The bipartisan drums, the pride and disgrace,
          You can pray to your god, but don’t leave a trace,
          Hate your next door neighbor, because they like to say grace,
          And you tell me over and over and over and over again my friend,
          You don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.

          1. Absolutely Priceless!

          2. Excellent work.

    2. “because she is the most articulate anti war candidate”

      That’s covered under “loves Assad.” Any anti-interventionist stance means that person is either a Russian patsy or an enabler of ruthless dictators.

      1. “Any anti-interventionist stance means that person is someone other than interventionist Tulsi Gabbard.”

        Fixed, no charge.

        1. The Knappster! Love your work, keep it up!

    3. The Democrats hate consistent antiwar voices.

    4. If Tulsi didn’t irrationally hate gun owners, she’d be such a good candidate :/

  4. “ I live on the planet where the Democratic electorate chose a woman to be their candidate in 2016—and where that same woman won the popular vote.”

    Tell me ask you the same question I have been asking of everybody who tells me Granny Maojackets von Pantsuit won the popular vote.

    What makes you think so?

    1. It doesn’t matter. There is no “popular vote” in American election law. She knew the rules, and she refused to listen to her husband (who despite being a scumbag himself, knew enough to win two elections) and campaign in Wisconsin.

      -jcr

      1. Bill has won seven elections of which two were national. The guy knows how to run a campaign.

        2 as AG of Arkansas
        3 as Gov of Arkansas
        2 as President

        1. Good point. As disgusting as Bill was as a person, he was an excellent politician, he knew how to get interest, who to contact to mold peoples’ opinion. Hillary, by contrast was a horrible politician. The more people got to know her, the more that people moved away from her. She got that US Senate seat in NY mostly off of Bill’s coattails, and even that was mostly NYC because that city has such a huge population. The rest of the state despised her, saw her as a usurper that had no connection to NY.

    2. Winning the popular vote in the presidential is like scoring the most total runs in the world series. It is an interesting fact, but totally irrelevant to actually winning.
      To be president, you have to win the electoral college.
      To win the world series, you have to win the most games.
      Those are the rules. Deal with it.

      1. If the World Series was like the Superbowl, managers would manage completely differently. And the game would probably be a lot slower then they already are as they change pitchers even more often to match pitcher to batter. If the general election was popular vote, the parties would campaign much harder in high populous states and regions that are friendly to them and worry less about less populous states. People think that it would end up with campaigning across the whole country, but forget about Game Theory. Elections have limited resources, of money, personal and time. Candidates would still spend much of these resources in areas most likely to give them an advantage. Today it is swing States. Under the popular vote it would be major urban areas (smaller urban areas may get some attention but not nearly as much as people think). And the two parties would be even more similar because they would be pandering for the same demographics. I know this appeals to urban progressives, but I doubt it would end very well for them.

        1. They would also be far more willing to campaign in BIG states that they otherwise give up for lost, because a vote is a vote. There’s no reason for a Republican to spend campaign capital in CA or a Democrat in much of the south. These states are lost to them. In a popular vote, you go tickle the folks anyway because if you can get a few percent higher in that lost state, it may make the difference. A big percent of the country however, would never see them simply because time is better spent elsewhere.

          Similarly, opposition voters in those states also play it differently. If you’re a conservative in CA and don’t see your vote worth anything, perhaps you stay home.

          There’s no way of telling how an election turns out if being played by different rules, much as there’s no way to know how a hypothetical football game will turn out. That said, I have no interest in a majority-rules election that caters primarily to population centers.

      2. This totally misses the point. The point was that some sixty million odd votes for a woman to be president. Which indicates that there a whole bunch of Democratic and independent voters who weren’t driven by sexism when it came voting for a president.

        Katie nailed it. Bernie lost last time and she decided run as Bernie-lite with a bigger slice of wokeness on the side (although Bernie has drifted uncomfortably far that direction too).

    3. Which Clinton won by large number in California, which the presidential race was a foregone conclusion and the next big election down ballot had no GOP candidate because of California’s ridiculous open primary system.

      Individual state presidential election results under the electoral college are not additive into one nationwide popular vote.

      1. “Individual state presidential election results under the electoral college are not additive into one nationwide popular vote.”

        Of course they are, just like numbers of ribeye steaks and hot fudge sundaes are additive into one food sales number.

        That number may be irrelevant to any particular use, but it does exist.

        1. They keep trying to use it as an actual nationwide popular vote, which is a particular use it is not suited for.

    4. Yeah, she got a plurality of the popular vote, meaning that Not Hillary won the popular vote, if we’re going to calculate based on a nonexistent concept.

      1. That would mean Not Trump won the popular vote, since Clinton had more votes than Trump.

        1. Yes, by popular vote, they are all losers. Which sounds about right.

    5. In the last days of the campaign, they were pouring money into solid Blue areas, due to a fear that she would win the electoral college but not the popular vote and that unscrupulous people might dare to impugn the legitimacy of her victory as a result.

      She ran on her unassailable reputation for competence. This was not a competent executive decision. Nor was “hey, let’s run my email off my own personal server in my basement”. Nor was any identifiable executive decision she has ever made in her three centuries in the public eye (seems that long…).

      She lost the election because she chose to run up her total in the popular vote, assuming she had the EC in the bag. Further proof that she chose the wrong profession and should have settled for Senior Research Associate at the Rose Law Firm, which is all she would have ever been if she hadn’t married Bill.

      1. “”Senior Research Associate at the Rose Law Firm, which is all she would have ever been if she hadn’t married Bill.”‘

        Perhaps less than that. Rose Law Firm is in Arkansas. A place where she would have never lived if she didn’t meet Bill in college.

        1. Even if she had never married Bill, or been in the Rose law firm, she would have made millions in cattle futures. She was really that good.

        2. I hear there’s a lot o’ deplorables in Arkansas.

        3. She would have been the lawyer who got fired from Nixon’s trial for unethical behavior. Rose Law Firm wouldn’t have touched her after that if she hadn’t married Bill.

          She owed her entire life to Bill Clinton, a man she clearly despises now, and that’s why she’s so bitter. Absent him, she’d be nothing.

    6. Because that’s what the election results say. Or at least they say that she got a plurality of the popular vote.
      Yes, the numbers could be wrong for any number of reasons. But that’s the official history, so we’re stuck with it.

      I prefer to look at it a different way. A majority of voters voted against Clinton (and Trump and everyone else). Which gives me some hope.

  5. What really killed the Warren campaign was the over hunting of buffalo

    1. That, combined with the white man giving out covid19 infected blankets

      1. Seems like that’s just strengthening her argument for universal healthcare, so really we did her a favor.

        1. Covid19 originated and propagated in the country with the world’s largest government-controlled healthcare system.

      2. No, it’s all the Red Chinese agents masquerading as Mexicans. It’s been going on for decades.

  6. “Warren’s followers are both primed to see sexism everywhere and so enamored with their candidate—so sure of her (and their own) righteousness—that they are unable to see any of the flaws that are so apparent to anyone outside their bubble.”

    But you’re willing to overlook all of those flaws because… Trump?

    1. Ugh. It’s “enamored of”, not “enamored with”. Use “enamored” as you would the word “fond”.

      /end pedant

      1. I think you meant

        /end pedantry

        Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

        1. No, C. A. jumped off a bridge while hitting send on the post. Further comments from that name will be from people trying to carry on the tradition.

  7. There is a constituency for what Warren and Sanders are selling, which basically is that the government will control absolutely every aspect of your life, and you’ll be happier for it, but it’s not a majority constituency, even within the Democratic party. If she implemented what she wanted she’d make a lot of people miserable. They knew it and so didn’t vote for her.

  8. She came in third place in the Massachusetts Democratic primary. So, Democrats in Massachusetts are so sexist that they would not vote for a woman?

    Her problem was that she spent all her time with Democrats from Massachusetts and assumed that everyone else in the country was as woke as them. In the process she made herself into a caricature. “Traffic Violence”.

    Her whole career has been based on lying about her past in order to claim unearned victim status. Its tiresome. From what I can see, her career as an academic was primarily based on said victim status. Certainly the methodology on her bankruptcy “studies” does not lead one to conclude that she is a competent academic.

    1. She IS a competent Academic, and Academic being a person who plays the political game of academia. She isn’t a competent SCHOLAR.

      Or liar.

      1. She is a poor liar, she has a tell. It’s very subtle though. Basically, if her mouth is moving, you know she’s lying. Watch her campaign videos and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

      2. eh, you know what they say. Those who can’t do, teach. So I’m not so sure about that competence.

        1. And those who can’t teach, teach gym.

        2. Not quite: “those who can, do; those who can’t, teach. It’s not about teachers being incompetent losers. It’s about turning to teaching when you for whatever reason, can’t do the thing you are knowledgeable about.

      3. I used her Bankruptcy textbook in law school and my prof. was a Warren acolyte. I could think when I read the case notes was that this woman is an idiot and is considered to be an expert in the subject despite knowing less than nothing about finance.

        1. *All I could think…

  9. Democrats are just going to have to face the fact that tits aren’t enough to qualify a candidate. If they want to elect the first female president of these United States, they’re going to have to nominate one who isn’t a scumbag. Gabbard isn’t a scumbag, but the DNC will never forgive her for taking out Willie Brown’s whore.

    -jcr

    1. Ignore Gyno-Americans at your peril, Sir!

    2. It’s going to be a fantastic day when Team Red votes in the first woman president. To watch the sea of hypocrisy that will be the result will be worth its weight in gold.

      1. We got a preview with Sarah Palin.

        1. No, Democrats dumped on her because she’s incompetent, not because she’s competent and has a different political philosophy than they do. I know this because they told me so.

          1. The thing that impressed me about Palin was that she could give a coherent, half-hour speech working from notes she’d written on her hand, while Obama was so crippled without his TelePrompter that he didn’t even know that he was repeating entire paragraphs when the text wasn’t advanced rapidly enough.

  10. Herzog : “…the fact that she positioned herself to split the progressive vote with Bernie Sanders—a candidate with grassroots momentum and a campaign that has been ongoing since 2015. Had she pitched herself as a capable, qualified, less ancient and more moderate Democrat instead of Bernie”

    Yep. That’s it exactly. Senator Warren is an appealing candidate and the lesser mistakes listed above are insignificant. And, yes, there was some sexism involved, but only on the margins. Remember: Absent Putin and Comey, Ms Clinton would have won in 2016, and she’s had the full rhythms-with-witch demonization treatment for decades.

    But Warren decided she needed to go toe-to-toe with Sanders and outflank him on the left, which was political malpractice of the highest order. First, this was to win votes from people almost as cultish as those of the Right for their Bungling Orange Deity. What were the odds of that? Second, the Democratic Party is obviously more centralist, so that’s where the votes are anyway. Ms Warren is obviously a smart person but was too stupid to see so simple, which is a conundrum of the highest order.

    All she had to do was to set up to the right of Sanders, and reap all the votes of those who consider him almost as much a troll as Trump. It was such a missed opportunity….

    1. Appealing to a very narrow constituency, not for the whole country. If the Democrats keep running regional candidates (urban and coastal) they are going to continue to lose. They aren’t running for Governor of California but President of the US. Her policies would be a disaster for many rural states and smaller urban areas, especially in non-coastal states. This is why we have the electoral college, so that the President has to try and reach as large a number of states as possible. Yes I know there are only a handful of swing States, but why is that? It is because the safe states’ voters have already decided one party is better then the other party generally for their state. If, and when that party stops representing the needs of the majority of a state, the state becomes either a swing state or flips. This has happened often over the past 50 years.

      1. If Sanders wins the nom, we’ll see it again in Florida, which has been a swing state for my entire voting life.

        The only reason Florida swings is because South Florida tends to vote Team Blue. Most of the rest of the state is Red.

        But Cubans in Miami, even The younger Blue voters, won’t even entertain the idea of voting for a guy who praised Castro. They’ll stay home.

        1. I think that’s exactly right. Bernie would probably lose Florida because of the Castro stuff.

          It would be interesting to see if he’d try to walk that stuff back in a general election. I don’t think he could ever bring himself to say that he’s changed his mind completely, and that he now believes Castro was evil. He’d try to hedge, saying something like some of the things that Castro did were wrong, but I’m pretty sure Bernie genuinely believes Castro was dramatically net good for Cuba, and he probably doesn’t get why the actual people who escaped that place might think different.

      2. especially in non-coastal states

        OT… shouldn’t, in fairness, the coastal states cede ocean access and right-of-way to each inland state. After all, the harbors belong to all of us, they didn’t build that.

    2. She could have swept the field as 2012 version of Warren. Once she got that fauxcahontas stuff behind her she would be sailing towards the nomination. A Hillary without the warmongering baggage. The DNC darling. Someone who could pick up the middle undecided voter.

      But she went full Bernie. You never go full Bernie.

    3. “”Remember: Absent Putin and Comey, Ms Clinton would have won in 2016,””

      Example of those who refuse to believe it was Clinton’s own fault.

      1. TrickyVic (old school) : “Example of those who refuse to believe it was Clinton’s own fault”

        The two things are mutually exclusive, ya know?

        (1) Ms Clinton did not run the best of campaigns.
        (2) Ms Clinton would have won absent the machinations of Putin/Comey (particularly the latter)

        Both statements are true.

        1. (2) is your opinion or present empirical evidence a proof.

          I noticed (1) is absent in your original post.

          1. Sigh. Must you be so simple minded?

            Re (2) : I concur with the opinion of Nate Silver, whose opinion is as follows :

            “But the effect of those factors — say, Clinton’s decision to give paid speeches to investment banks, or her messaging on pocket-book issues, or the role that her gender played in the campaign — is hard to measure. The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.”

            Re (1) : Why should I have included it in my initial post? Is there a definitive list of things I have to say in every post regardless of the point I’m making? Did you assume I meant Ms Clinton ran a perfect campaign, and Putin/Comey was the only factor involved in her defeat? Why must you be so simple minded?

            1. “”Did you assume I meant Ms Clinton ran a perfect campaign””

              No. I took you post for what you said in your post. That she lost because of Putin/Comey.

            2. “”Remember: Absent Putin and Comey, Ms Clinton would have won in 2016, and she’s had the full rhythms-with-witch demonization treatment for decades.””

              It’s seem clear that you are saying without Putin and Comey, she would have won. You are clearly, at lest by the text of the post, not making room for any other reason for her loss. Because absent Putin and Comey she would have won. So you said.

              1. So, TrickyVic (old school), you’re deep in a hole of your own making, staring up at the circle of sky high above. My advice? stop digging..

                (1) “It’s seem clear that you are saying without Putin and Comey, she would have won” Yep

                (2) “You are clearly, at lest by the text of the post, not making room for any other reason for her loss”

                This imbecilic bit of “reasoning” is clear to no one but you. It’s so bankrupt of logic I wonder why you still try to push it. You’re not beating a dead horse, your beating the ground where the horse corpse once was, before it rotted away to dust

                Because absent Putin and Comey she would have won” Yep.

                1. “”Because absent Putin and Comey she would have won” Yep.””

                  Thanks for admitting what I said. You seem to go a long way trying to get around it.

                  1. I keep underestimating just how stupid you are. One final attempt to drill down into the thick bone of your skull & locate some sense.

                    “Absent Putin and Comey she would have won, despite having run a poor campaign”

                    You do understand that (a) that’s entirely possible (as well as being true) and (b) since that’s true & possible it makes your “point” moronic nonsense?

                    1. “”“Absent Putin and Comey she would have won, despite having run a poor campaign”””

                      It’s funny how you thing that disputes my point.

                      I’m pointed out you as an example of some who faults someone other than Clinton for her loss. Putin and Comey in this case. You think that despite her poor campaign she would have won.

                      It was her poor campaign that caused her loss, not Comey or Putin.

                      I think you under estimate your own stupidity.

                2. That’s numbered lists indicate that you can’t think outside the talking points you’re given, hicklib. Back to the trailer park with you.

            3. “I concur with the opinion of Nate Silver”

              Who did such a great job calling the 2016 election. How could anyone question his judgment? And it’s not just that he got states like Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania wrong, he wasn’t even close.

              Oh, I know, just because he predicted the wrong winner for almost every swing state doesn’t mean he was wrong. It’s just a simulation, after all. I would buy that argument except the only reason anyone knows who he is is because he got all the states right in 2012 and almost all of them right in 2008.

              Not to mention that even according to his models, Clinton’s late election slide began before Comey released his memo.

        2. Ms Clinton would have won absent the machinations of Putin

          Are you talking about the release of those disgusting emails that the drunk old sociopath actually wrote? The actual evidence is pretty strong that that was an inside job rather than the Red Menace.

          Also, explain to me how $100,000 worth of Facebook and Twitter adverts by the Russkis managed to swing an election, but Five Hundred Million Bloomberg bucks didn’t do jack shit.

          1. There’s a clear explanation for why the Russians managed to swing an election with their money, but Bloomberg couldn’t. Simply put, Bloomberg was trying to sway Democrats, who are obviously too smart to believe his attempt at bribery, whereas the people the Russians actually did sway were the flip-floppers in the middle, who have demonstrated that they are too dumb to realize that the Democratic way is the one true way.
            /Democratic party true believer

        3. “(2) Ms Clinton would have won absent the machinations of Putin/Comey (particularly the latter)”

          You.
          Are.
          Full
          Of.
          Shit.

    4. “Ms Warren is obviously a smart person ….”

      Ipse dixit.

    5. Appealing candidate?

      She finished third. In her home state.

    6. Warren decided she needed to go toe-to-toe with Sanders and outflank him on the left

      That had some effect on her rhetoric, but she’s always been a looter and an autocrat. Even if Bernie had never existed, she’d be a scumbag.

      -jcr

  11. Yes sure it may be true that someone as “qualified” and “intellectual” as Warren, who happens to be male, could win. But I think it is highly unlikely. Just about every policy the author supports of Warren’s are deeply unpopular outside the coastal states. In fact, I doubt anyone, which she admits, on the more libertarian side, and even a sizable number of non-coastal Democrats, find these policies really appealing. On top of the fact, her so called intellect, based upon the plans she actually presented, seems debatable at best. They basically ignore fiscal reality and basic economic principles.

    1. yeah, what intellect. Every time she opened her mouth I cringed. She sounded like a moron to me.

      1. Warren is someone who seems smart to people who aren’t necessarily dumb, but aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are.

    2. She’s not an intellectual at all, she’s a sophist like Krugman. Adept at inventing absurd rationalizations to cover her lust for power.

      -jcr

  12. Warren lost because she is a shrill scold who knows everything better than everybody else. I’ve said it before, and will say it again — she’s that awful aunt who gives socks and handkerchiefs for Christmas and birthdays, and you can’t wait for the day she dies and stops coming to Thanksgiving and Christmas.

    What was that old line about Bush 43 won because people could imagine him being fun at BBQs, and Al Gore would have dragged them all down?

    Lizzie Warren makes Al Gore look like fun at a BBQ.

    1. I think Al Gore would be great fun at a BBQ. He sort of strikes me as the sort of guy who knows how to grill. Policy wise he’s a total ass, but I can definitely see him in the back yard grillmastering the shit out of a nice sirloin.

      1. He’d probably eat them all himself.

      2. BBQ contributes to climate change, don’t you know, especially grilling with natural gas. So, I can’t see St Al grilling or barbecuing for anyone other then himself.

        1. I think Algore would BBQ using only mesquite limbs that fell naturally from the wind. Using a smoker that recirculates the released CO2 into carbonating the beverages.

          Mmmm, brilled ManBearPig!

        2. Of course he grills. But he makes sure to buy carbon offsets to make up for it, the way he does when he flies everywhere. Which is just his way of saying, “I’ve got mine, and the little people can’t have any, because it’s bad for the environment.”

    2. What’s wrong with socks? That’s all I want for Christmas these days.

      1. How old are you, Zeb? What size socks you wearing? If you need some, let me know.

    3. Yeah Bloomberg lost for the same reason. Like Warren he’s an unlikable, insufferable busybody who you just wish would STFU.

      1. Ever notice just how much Bloomberg looks like a snapping turtle. I swear, put him in a turtle shell with scaly things all over his face; he’s a dead ringer for a snapping turtle.

        1. Mitch McConnell objects!!

  13. Warren’s supporters were so enamored with her righteousness that they struggled to see her obvious flaws.

    Just for the record, Warren is not, and has never been, righteous.

    1. Leftous, yes.

      1. Remember when she claimed she was a “capitalist”? That really cracked me up. It still brings a silly smile to my face. She’s a capitalist just like she’s a Cherokee, only less so … you know what I mean?

    2. Righteous, sanctimonious, they’re really the same, right?

    3. She is to the morally bankrupt intellectual left. They tend to oversell their favorites intelligence and abilities and come to believe their own press.

  14. Maddow to warren last night:

    “I think there’s a feeling that your campaign ending is very specific to you and it also feels a little bit like a death knell in terms of the prospects of having a woman president in our lifetimes,” Maddow said.

    1. I don’t get this obsession with having a woman president. All the right-thinking people who seem to want this are also the first ones to tell you that there is no real difference between a man and a woman. If that’s truly so, a candidate’s sex shouldn’t matter, should it? And yet, to all those right-thinking voters, it apparently does.

      1. These same people viciously mocked Carly Fiorina when she was up on stage competing for the Republican nomination. They only want a woman president if she’s the right woman president. Period.

        Hell, they’ve done their best to get Gabbard off the stage too.

        1. Heck, remember how people treated Sarah Palin when she was the VP candidate? She’s a woman, but because she was a woman they didn’t agree with, she was portrayed as a giggling bimbo. A very sexist treatment.

          Apparently, only women that these people strongly agree with deserve to be respected for their achievements.

      2. There are differences between men and women…women are better in every way. Except Trump-voting white women, they just did what their husbands told them and they’re too stupid to recognize their own interests.

      3. I wonder how they would handle a trans-female candidate? How would they handle the first “female” President being a biological male?

        1. Kaitlin Jenner 2020!

        2. I would totally vote for Deirdre McCloskey. But it’s not like she would ever accept the nomination. More brains in her head than the entire decade of Democrat candidates.

      4. I don’t get this obsession with having a president, period.

        The constitutional version really doesn’t have much to do that’s very important, and the unconstitutional version fucks everything up.

        1. I’ve long thought there should be no executive, simply to force Congress to take some responsibility. If some agency they create needs a head honcho, they can conduct interviews same as anyone else. Put out a job description, solicit resumes, interview the promising candidates. Or promote entirely through the civil service.

          1. We tried that from 1775 until 1789, it didn’t work out so well.

      5. the right-thinking people who seem to want this are also the first ones to tell you that there is no real difference between a man and a woman

        But they are also the first to tell you that women bring unique perspectives that can’t be had any other way.
        Group based identity politics is so ridiculously self-contradictory.

    2. I’m guessing Nikki Haley won’t count as a woman (much less a minority woman) in 2024.

  15. The author of this piece holds to many terrible political stances that make me question how she got in contact with a supposedly libertarian outlet.

    1. ^^ this, in spite of (or perhaps because of) calling Suderman “her.”

      Suderman sez:
      “…she still had plenty of ideas that I liked, from universal preschool to boosting small business to ending for-profit prisons and getting rid of the Electoral College.”

      Holy Jumpin’ Jeebus on a POGO STICK, SUDERMAN! How can you write that sentence and even READ Reason, much less get paid to work here??

      You do know that paying for universal preschool and boosting small business are fairly incompatible, right? And can you explain how states as different as Delaware and Wyoming, Texas and Illinois will remain in the same “United States” WITHOUT the Electoral College?

      3 more cocktail parties for you, and it’s off to Vox.

      KMG, would you PLEASE vet your hires a bit? I’m not asking for ideological purity, but if I want to read progressive diarrhea I have SO many other options.

      1. Sigh… no edit button… KMG=KMW, or KM-W if you wish.

        1. Double-sigh… Herzog not Suderman. So “her” is correct. (Jury’s still out on Suderman.)

          But maybe if we hold Suderman responsible for everything silly written here, he’ll get to Vox sooner? We can hope…

      2. She’s from Seattle, so she doesn’t give a shit about the flyover rubes.

      3. “KMG, would you PLEASE vet your hires a bit? I’m not asking for ideological purity, but if I want to read progressive diarrhea I have SO many other options.”

        She has been.
        That’s the problem

    2. Indeed. I’m envisioning the interview.
      Reason – “What are your qualifications to be a writer for a Libertarian media organization?”
      Herzog – “I’m a really big Elizabeth Warren fan, particularly her universal baby sitting/pre-school policies ideas.”
      Reason – “Hired!”

      1. To be fair, based on the subscript, it appears to be a guest article from an author at another outlet.

        Also, personal political commentary aside, the author makes good points about Warren and her base.

    3. Really. I thought I was at Reader Supported News.

  16. That bathwater that Liz’s and her supporters have been drinking has a real Billary tang to it.

    1. People are eating lunch around this time, you inconsiderate jerk.

    2. Not cool man

  17. So Warren’s campaign came to an end due to sexism. But what ended Bloomberg’s campaign? Is that sexism too? Does every campaign end because of sexism?

    The is the deep personal flaw of democrat candidates: They were literally unable to introspect and see that their campaign losses are anything about them.

    Sometimes they’re not, sometimes the voters just prefer someone else. But Hillary and her supporters still fail to acknowledge that Hillary ran a shitty campaign based on fundraising in safe states and not in drumming up support in swing states. In short, Hillary completely overlooked the existence of the Electoral College.

    Now we have Warren who spent her campaign time trying to be the wonky version of Bernie. There’s only room for one Bernie in the race. It’s not sexism that she’s out of the race, the problem is that Warren never campaigned as Warren.

    1. Killary has been complaining for years now blaming everyone under the son for her failure. Now she’s starting a podcast, I guarantee Warren will be on there and both will bitch and moan about how sexist the country is.

    2. But what ended Bloomberg’s campaign?

      Heightism, ageism, antisemitism and plutophobia.
      The poor dear, how he suffered.

  18. At no time did Liz Warren have a chance of seeing the inside of the White House w/o a tour ticket. Zero.

  19. I wasn’t going to vote for Warren after watching her give vague responses on how she would pay for her “free” programs. She’s an academic who has never had an issue spending other people’s money and I didn’t believe her when she spoke because she seemed to be pandering all the time. Of course, this week, most of the articles about her not having a successful campaign blamed “those evil men” who can’t handle a female President. Democrats still haven’t figured out Trump and don’t seem to realise that the American people require that their President has a spine. Sanders is a weak and ineffectual Leftist who I wouldn’t trust to lead a group of cub scouts to an ice cream stand. Warren strikes me as having similar character and so I didn’t vote for her.

    1. “”Of course, this week, most of the articles about her not having a successful campaign blamed “those evil men” who can’t handle a female President. “‘

      Joe Biden?

      1. Biden handles every female within reach.

          1. Somebody at Bing has way too much time on their hands.

          2. At least Trump knows which hair to sniff!

  20. “”The is the deep personal flaw of democrat candidates: They were literally unable to introspect and see that their campaign losses are anything about them.””

    Yep.
    I know people that are blaming Hillary’s loss on people who did not vote.

    1. Was a reply to Brandybuck’s post.

  21. She fraudulently claimed to be an Indian. Nobody should vote for her just because of that alone.

    1. You know, I really don’t care about that at all. If she had lied about being and Indian, but had great, liberty-friendly policy ideas, I’d have no problem with her.

  22. That Katie agrees with Warren that the Electoral College should be abolished is disappointing.

    1. Not to worry. Just as soon as they can find a way to personally benefit from it, they’ll decide they’re in favor of it.

      1. I read an interview with John Waters. He pushed back when the interviewer tried to blame the EC for Clinton’s loss and he said something like, if it was our team that won the EC we wouldn’t be complaining about it.

  23. More like faux-righteousness.

  24. She proved herself to be not just a lier but a wholly unlikeable person with some very strange ideas. Getting a trans child to OK a cabinet post being one.

  25. My wife has convinced me that the first woman elected president will have to be moderate-to-slightly-conservative in their overall politics, and, more to the point, a Republican. I would not bet against my wife.

    1. *cough*Margaret Thatcher*cough*

    2. Nikky Haley

      1. I think my wife might have some problems voting for Nikky. She doesn’t exactly fit the “moderate” level on reproductive rights or gay marriage. (PEW indicates that right at 60% of the populace support both).

        1. Lol… whats the moderate position on baby killing… sorry, reproductive rights?

          1. The moderate position in Carthage perhaps, except nowadays babies are sacrificed to Mammon rather than Moloch.

            1. Infidels!

        2. So someone is only “moderate” if they hang with the left on these two things? Any other leftist litmus tests you want to apply to “moderate-to-slightly-conservative”?

          The fact that you adopt the term “reproductive rights” in place of “abortion”, means Warren was probably more likely your idea of what a moderate actually is, and generally a politically correct douche. Quit being a coward and own your leftism.

      2. Nikki will probably claim she’s an Indian, too!!

    3. THat seems plausible. Now we just need to find more ambitious Republican women who don’t come off as batshit insane.

      1. That, or those who are little more than “Republican men in skirts.”

        1. Explain this remark. What qualities do you expect a Republican woman to have to meet your qualifications?

      2. Better yet, one the media doesn’t portray as batshit crazy.

      3. Let me guess, your television auto-starts on CNN?

    4. I asked my wife in 2016 wouldn’t she like to have a woman president. She was like yeah but not her. Most women have moved past the whole first woman president thing. They have better things to worry about.

  26. “The feeling is nicely summed up by Jason Stanley, professor of philosophy at Yale and author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. “To repeat the obvious: there is no other explanation except for misogyny for what has happened to Senator Warren this year,” Stanley tweeted after Warren suffered across-the-board losses on Super Tuesday. He called this “profoundly depressing.”

    Philosophy ain’t what it used to be.

    1. I pity this guy for his lack of imagination. His world must be terribly small and uncomfortable.

    2. Nah, you just don’t hear about the morons from the past.

      1. And there are more “professional philosophers” in the world today than there ever have been. They don’t get quite so selective.

        1. I prefer the stand-up philosophers of the ancient world.

          1. I like the classics, but they are all wrong too.

            I spent years studying Plato and never once thought “this guy really has it all figured out”.

            1. All you needed to do was read Republic to reach the same conclusion.

    3. “To repeat the obvious: there is no other explanation except for misogyny for what has happened to Senator Warren this year,”

      Mr. Stanley tweeted this. In scientific theorizing, this would be thrown out in an instant: this statement is saying ” I know everything that can occur in the universe and the only thing that can occur here is X”

      Mr. Stanley is claiming that he knows everything that can occur in all of the voters minds. Being a scholar and employing such reasoning is VERY likely to make one depressed, and rightly so. Misusing reason usually makes the user depressed.

  27. “I suppose it’s possible that the last four years of President Donald Trump have turned Democrats more sexist than they were before,”

    This is a strange sentence. Trump has the power to turn Democrats into sexists? How strong is this guy and how weak are Democrats?

    1. He’s got that Putin Power!

    2. Not only does he live rent-free in their heads; he has the entire top-floor penthouse condo.

      1. You just know it’s garish and absolutely devoid of taste, which drives the landlord nuts.

    3. Trump has the power to turn Democrats into sexists? How strong is this guy and how weak are Democrats?

      White progressive political ideology today has a sacral and religious function to the left, so Trump has become their devil.
      Everything bad that happens to them is due to the malevolent supernatural force occupying the presidency.

  28. she said that she would let this 9-year-old kid vet the next secretary of education.

    Europe is letting a 16 year old girl vet their entire economy.

  29. “Unlike most Reason readers, I was a Warren fan before this campaign—such a Warren fan, in fact, that six months before Trump was elected, I made a bet that Clinton would lose and Warren would be the first female president.”

    If there are Reason readers who are fans of Warren, then they’re not libertarians. Ditto for the author. You are PROGRESSIVES.

    How can you even begin to bridge libertarian (classical liberal thought) with Elizabeth fricken Warren? From the onset she was an idiot and you were a fan?

    How can one be duped by such an inauthentic, unlikeable wonk-nag who has a problem with truth who would fit right in with Tommy Flanagan?

    Seriously. Give yourselves a head shake and stop pretending to be libertarian. Tired of these lefties using the tag as some kind of friggin hipster-tag like Bill Maher.

    Progs are in the system. Tread carefully.

    1. Gender is awfully important to some people.

    2. start with “Katie”…

    3. I could vote for a liberal. But never a progressive. The sad thing is that virtually no one knows the difference.

      1. One wants to suffocate you with regulations, the other prefers the firing squad.

        1. Suffocation then firing squad. Or have I got this backward? And then a trial.

          OK, firing squad, arrest, trial and then sentencing. Did I miss anything?

      2. The sad thing, to me, is that progressives are bleeding into the republican party.

        1. I suspect both parties are full participants in the progressive project whether they know it or not.

    4. I’ll quote someone, I forget who it is, but it seems relevant:

      “Smoking weed and whining about parking tickets doesn’t make one a libertarian.”

      It seems that Reason’s standards have gotten to the point where as long as a writer has 1 opinion that is vaguely libertarian, that’s good enough. The understanding of the philosophy doesn’t have to be more than an inch deep. We have authors at a supposedly libertarian publication talking about how they’d vote for Bloomberg or Warren and it’s fucking shameful.

      1. Did Reason ever say they would never hire anyone who was not a libertarian?
        It’s nothing new. They hired Dave Weigal over a deacade ago. When most people did agree that it was a libertarian magazine.

        1. I think not hiring libertarians is the general practice rather than the exception.

          For example Shikha and Welch are authoritarian leftists, and Binion, Boehm, Suderman, ENB, KMW, Britschgi, Root, Sullum, De Rugy, Shakford and Bailey are all bien pensant, quasi-liberal statists. So is Gillespie, but his jacket is libertarian.

          1. What about his hair?

            1. It favors Kritarchy.

      2. “Smoking weed and whining about parking tickets doesn’t make one a libertarian.”

        Everybody knows it’s smoking weed and open borders that makes one a real libertarian.

        1. Oh, and ass sex. Never forget the ass sex.

    5. According to the info when you click her name. She is a staff writer for The Stranger. A newspaper in Seattle.

      https://www.thestranger.com/

      1. Ah, so they don’t actually employ her.

        I do not like this apparently popular idea that we should never be exposed to people with ideas we think are wrong.

        1. Well, she gets points for not falling for the lazy ‘it’s because of sexism’ excuse.

          1. Well, The Stranger Endorses Bernie Sanders for President so she is probably towing the party line.
            https://www.thestranger.com/features/2020/02/26/42971285/the-stranger-endorses-bernie-sanders-for-president

    6. I hope there are lots of non-libertarian Reason readers. They might actually be exposed to some new ideas. Libertarians just come to bitch. Or debate the merits of bitching.

      1. I come for the humour and stay for the pillorying. And the ideological jokes. Hey, did you hear this one: AOC says ‘toast goes in and bread comes out’ No, wait, it goes like, toast is like bread but nobody gets butter until we all get butter. And I’m in charge. Yeah, that’s it.

      2. I see your point but I argue Reason should be for libertarian thought.

        If I want to get exposed to prog think I can go to any number of publications for that.

    7. I have a friend who has always claimed to be a libertarian. He’s a Bernie Bro through and through.

      1. Weed and buttsex are cool AF for those guys but that’s it.

  30. Ironically, this tendency to blame all of Warren’s failings on sexism comes across as somewhat…sexist.

    That’s modern feminism, baby. Women are like the wild orchid, they need protectin’, cultivatin’. Delicate flowers all.

  31. Kenapa seo itu penting? karena seo adalah teknik utama untuk meningkatkan tingkat kepopuleran situs website milik Anda. Ada beberapa teknik seo yang dapat diterapkan. Setelah itu anda perlu mengikuti kontes SEO untuk menghasilkan pendapatan dengan cara berkompetisi. Melalui blog ini anda akan mendapatkan info kontes seo terbaru dan terupdate.

    1. i’ll diterapkan you.

    2. Hihn is making more sense than usual.

      1. lol. His keyboard was upside down and he didn’t even notice.

  32. “Had she pitched herself as a capable, qualified, less ancient and more moderate Democrat instead of Bernie Lite, it’s possible it would be her running against him right now instead of Joe Biden. “

    In other words, if she lied about who she was and what she wanted. But she did lie, didn’t she? And how’d that work out for her?

    Maybe it’s like socialism- it only works when the right people are in charge.

  33. The same media people who happily destroyed Tulsi Gabbard, the one woman in the Democratic field who had any charisma or appeal outside the party, for the sin of questioning the deep state and endless war, are now informing us that we are all sexist because Democratic voters didn’t choose their favored woman candidate, who had zero charisma or appeal outside the party.

    And it is the entire country who is sexist because Democratic primary voters rejected Warren. Warren is a phony, a liar, and one of the least charismatic and unappealing candidates in modern history. She sucks so bad she couldn’t appeal to people in her own party. Sexism has nothing to do with it.

    1. After yesterday’s librarian fantasy comments, I’d prefer it if we didn’t use “Elizabeth Warren” and “sucking” in such close proximity.

      But yeah, she was so wildly unpopular she couldn’t win her own state in a primary. She’s just bad at this and lost as a result.

    2. “She sucks so bad she couldn’t appeal to people in her own party.”

      She sucks so bad she couldn’t appeal to people in her own state. You know, the ones who elected her in the first place.

      That’s some major league suckage going on there.

      1. Ok- I waited too long to click “Submit”. Fat Mike’s Drug Habit wins.

    3. I’m glad the Ds shanked Tulsi.
      They don’t deserve someone sane as the face of the party, and she could’ve given Trump a tough challenge.
      As is, they appear as they are

      1. The only reason she ran is that she was in the belief that if she ran a faint him he would grab her by the pussy.

  34. Unlike most Reason readers, I was a Warren fan before this campaign—such a Warren fan, in fact, that six months before Trump was elected, I made a bet that Clinton would lose and Warren would be the first female president.

    What’s so sad is so many of these erstwhile solid, libertarian candidates have done so much to squander Reason’s support.

    First, Bloomberg loses Gillespie’s vote, now I hear Warren lost Katie’s? Next thing you’re going to tell me is Bernie has lost Matt Welch.

    What the hell is going on?!!

    1. You’ll know it’s finally gone off the rails when Robby announces he’s going to vote for Trump.

      1. I kinda think Robby might be most likely to vote for Trump.

        I mean, to be sure, Trump is an obnoxious, bullying, weirdo obsessed with his own image and prestige. But you could do a lot worse.

        1. I see what you did there.

          To be sure.

  35. She would have blamed it on the Russkis, but that one’s been used up.

  36. I’m glad and sort of relieved that she burned out so fast. But we’ve still got Bernie going strong.

  37. I would agree that Elizabeth Warren made mistakes that cost her in the end. There are other women that did not make mistakes and still did not get support. I am thinking primarily of Amy Klobuchar. There may be an element of misogyny in her failure to get support, but I would also suggest the prisoners dilemma had a significant impact. People are very invested in winning this election and that will affect your decision. You assume that some people would not select a woman and you adjust your vote to a white man because you assume he will have a better chance. You say my heart is with Amy, Liz, Kamilla, Christen, or Tulsi, but the safe bet is Joe. This same idea may explain why minority candidates like Booker and Castro did not do as well in their communities. It really takes an extraordinary candidate like John Kennedy or Barrack Obama to get people to take that leap of faith and go with their heart.

    1. Klobuchar is as likeable as overcooked plain oatmeal. She was never going to win national office.

      Every time around there’s a crop of these people who just have absolutely no chance.

      1. Maybe that part of the problem. We want flash in our President, competence will only get you so far. Maybe we would be better off with a boring President that knew what they were doing. You have to wonder if Cal Coolidge or Harry Truman could be President today.

        1. But Commodus, Nero and Caligula would!

        2. “…Maybe that part of the problem…”

          What “problem”?

          1. I think it is instinct. We size people up with a look. Just like dating… you know if they are a no immediately. The same goes for leaders.

            King David is the archetype. Warrior king, wise and just (when he’s not sending his best friend off to die in battle so he can bang his wife).

            We pick Henry Kissinger to be the advisor to the president, not to be president.

            Look at the CEO, COO and President of your company. On average they will be more imposing than average. Nobody is following Stephen Hawking in to battle. But they’ll follow The Rock.

            You gotta have the total package in a place as competitive as the US, but from the jump you have to have a physical presence and charisma. Then we’ll listen to you talk about policy.

            1. It wasn’t all his fault. Batsheva had a lot to do with it. The city was just below the palace where he would take his daily stroll. She knew what she was doing when she took her bath on the roof.

              The only ones with charisma in my day have been Reagan and Bill Clinton. Not sure how the rest of them got elected.

            2. I guess Obama had some of it. Tall, good looking, he carried himself and spoke well, an aloof sort of air of dignity.

              One thing I liked about him was he had a flaw. He smoked which was not acceptable for a president. Switched to nicorette supposedly but I bet he snuck a Marlboro every now and then.

              1. Mom jeans… and he sounded like those pretentious pseudo-intellectual kids in high school, who were always pontificating about philosophy and current events, but got shitty marks and failed chemistry and math.

              2. Good looking? Jesus, dude. Was that sarcasm? He’s an inarticulate twat who’s never had an original thought in his life and epitomizes the “shave its ass and teach it to walk backward” joke.

        3. You’re talking about competence. What does that have to do with Klobuchar?

  38. a bazillion women

    Man I feel for the census takers next year; that’s more then trillion. Maybe we do need a wall.

    1. And you know, of course, if they didn’t have a cooter ther’d be a bounty on ’em all.

  39. I know you guys dispute Herzog’s place in a libertarian mag like Reason, and you’re right to do so, but I think the point of having her here is obvious: “Look, you expect libertarians to despise a statist fuck like Warren, so you totally will call us disingenuous when we point out all the flaws of her campaign. So, fine, here’s one of your own, a progressive who likes all the crap you hold dear… and she still thinks your sexism schtick is totally old and bullshit.”

    It’s like the opposite of a strawman argument (I believe Kmele Foster of The Fifth Column podcast calls it an “ironman” argument)… “Fine, we’ll assume for the moment your arguments are strong, and proceed accordingly and show that even when your strongest arguements are right, you’re still wrong.”

    It’s a good, intellectually powerful argument technique… if those you are trying to convince are intellectually consistent and honest. Where Reason gets it wrong is in thinking that is the case. Their opposition in this case are True Believers more likely to label Herzog a class/race/gender traitor and just move on rather than seeing any truth there that might draw them into agreeing with the libertarian POV or to come under the big tent of little-L libertarianism. Contra what is being discussed in this thread, that’s very Nick Gillespie more than it is KM-W.

    In short, I can see what the editors of Reason are trying to do, but I don’t think it will work, and as such it dilutes the Reason “brand” to no good effect in the long run.

    1. ” if those you are trying to convince are intellectually consistent and honest”

      They’re trying to convince progressives, so we know that isn’t true. They’ll just “No true Scotsman” her and stop inviting her to cocktail parties.

    2. Depends on what you mean by “work”.
      Surely there are some people out there who are open minded enough to change their minds occasionally. Lots of libertarians didn’t start out that way.
      I don’t think articles like this are going to cause any broad change, but I’d still say it’s good that they exist.

      1. It is good they exist. But putting it under the Reason masthead rather than linking to it in, for example, Reason Roundup just lends credence to what many posters in this Comments section tend to claim: Reason is full of cosmopolitarians more concerned about what their progressive friends think of them than maintaining philosophical consistency.

  40. So video didn’t kill the radio star?

  41. Just tell them Carly Fiorina wasn’t elected president JUST because she is a Woman and watch them eat-up their own arguments.

    1. I would Carly Fiorina did not get the same chance as some of her male counterparts. I also noticed that Trump’s attacks on other candidates were about intelligence, or honesty, while he attacked Carly on her looks.

      I would also note that Republican are very willing to put up women candidates for hopeless or competitive seats, but they tend to reserve the safe seats for men.

      1. Yeh, I find what he did to her was brutal.

      2. “I also noticed that Trump’s attacks on other candidates were about intelligence, or honesty, while he attacked Carly on her looks.”

        What was her response about his looks?

        1. “I’d do him”

      3. LOL… “attacked ________ on [her] looks.” versus “attacked ________ on [his] looks.”

        Well Crap; I guess the “Orange Man” didn’t get the self-proclamation memo that ONLY [her’s] are ENTIRELY exempt from “look” attacks.

  42. “If a man with Warren’s qualifications, intellect, and talent ran for office”, he would look a lot like the Democrats’ last policy-wonk candidate, Al Gore – who also lost.

    By the way, I actually like policy wonks. But they have to be good at it. She’s not.

    1. Ok, so who is a good policy wonk?

      1. Except for his mania about climate change, Al Gore was an effective policy wonk. He understood the details, he considered consequences and he was decent at communicating them. I disagreed with many of his priorities but when he said the math added up, it usually did.

        Paul Ryan was another good policy wonk. Again, even if you disagreed with his priorities, his numbers usually added up.

        Going further back, Thomas Jefferson is the epitome of a good policy wonk.

        1. I agree with you about Paul Ryan. I think under other circumstances he would have been a good Speaker.

          1. Yes, if he weren’t an open borders, big spending shill who regularly caved in to the democrats he might have been good.

  43. It’s an exaggeration (hyperbole) to say that Warren blamed all her losses on sexism. She didn’t say that, she implied it was a factor. I think that some of the Bernie bros wouldn’t vote for a woman even if like Warren, her policies overlapped with much of his (with the exception being they were much more detailed.)

  44. Warren isn’t a victim of misogyny, she’s the cause of it.

    1. The sound of her voice is a good argument for lunching women. Or at least her.

  45. Back when Barack Obama ran they accused anyone not voting for him of racism. Back when Hillary Clinton ran they accused anyone not voting for her of sexism.

    I said then and I can say now, if Dr. Condaleeza Rice ran, I’d have no problem voting for her. Can say now that if Nikki Haley were to run, I’d have no problem voting for her.

    It’s not racism or sexism at all, they were candidates whose proclaimed policies are fundamentally opposed to my desired policies. Rejecting the policies of white males like Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden don’t allow for any woke “-ism” claims, but my rejection of Biden and Sanders is not a bit different than my rejection of Obama and Clinton and Warren.

    1. Isn’t Sanders Jewish? It will be anti-Semitism then. Joe, it will be ableism because the dude is obviously going downhill quick mentally.

  46. She lost because she started the race as a self-identified “woman of color…”
    For obvious reasons, no one took her seriously.

  47. Katie,

    In real English, one says “enamored of” instead of “enamored with.”

  48. Why waste time discussing such a subhuman?

  49. Maybe she did lose due to sexism, as in people are getting tired of her sexist ass being all over the place.

  50. Food for thought. Thanks

    I think it may be more basic and primal. We, as a people who feel very protective of our democracy and find well being when it flourished just want To stop the terrorism being inflicted on it. Just make it stop. Maybe a centrist is just what we need right now, and after we have a little healing, maybe the We’ll be ready for a Warren revolution.

    As for Sanders, I watched firsthand as the party establishment tolerate shenanigans to give HRC the advantage, so I think Bernie’s supporters, and I was one, are looking for compensation after feeling being cheated last time.

    I for one, want our politicians to be righteous and worthy of our trust. We had that with Obama and I know we still want that now.

    But like I said. For now, just make it stop!

    1. “so I think Bernie’s supporters, and I was one, …”.

      I’m seriously confused. How is it that one who can support a Marxist finds himself on a (ostensibly) Libertarian site and finds it compelling to leave a comment?

    2. What a great example of how Nazi’s *feel*

      – I speak for the “[WE] as a people” foundation – authoritarian
      – feel very protective of our democracy – ignorant
      – The [We] Nazi’s had that with Obama and I know [we] still want that now.

      1) Authoritarian – You don’t speak for [WE] you speak for the delusion in your head; The [WE] foundation. Sell your soul to the [WE] foundation because you don’t own you; [WE] own you.

      2) The USA NEVER WAS nor WILL EVER BE a Democracy!! It’s a Republic from it’s very definition in the U.S. Constitution.

      3) Bernie is Hitler of 2020 – This is fact not fiction. Do you not realize that the synonym ‘Nazi’ was derived from the term ‘National Socialism’?? Check your dictionary if you don’t believe me.

  51. Like Hillary, Warren is exceptionally unlikeable. It’s not about her gender, it’s about her PC agenda.

    1. The left has brought ‘sexism’ (identity politics) into the USA to create more [WE] foundation gang members.

  52. It’s the hair. She looks like a middle school principal. Nobody likes those.

    Get rid of the side part girl. Let it flow over those big ears. Put some bounce it. Here is a phone number – Andre. He will fix you right up. (Gets out sharpie and writes number on her hand)

  53. Another flaw with Warren-she claims to be concerned about the high cost of college tuition, was promoting student loan debt “cancellation”- which is really transferring the debt to those who paid their loans or didn’t even go to college. She then gets $400,000 to teach ONE college course. She benefitted from the same overpriced system that she is claiming to want to eliminate. I’m sure this did not go over well with people that realized they would be paying much more in taxes to cover this “cancellation” of student loan debt.

  54. Could it be that what resonates in the faculty lounge at Harvard or the break room of the New York Times doesn’t really float the boat of the average voter? On the other hand, if the voters were merely choosing the smuggest, snobbiest, and most insufferable prig, well Warren would have won hands down.

  55. I make a big amount online work . How ??? Just u can done also with this site and u can do it Easily 2 step one is open link next is Click on Tech so u can done Easily now u can do it also here..>>> Click it here  

  56. Good column. The real reason she flamed out was all the lies. The DNA test was clearly fake. All the pictures of Warren look like she’s struggling to breathe in Earth’s atmosphere. Clearly she’s an alien, not a native Earthling.

  57. Warren is a lying, shrill old harpy who was NEVER going to be elected POTUS. Hope she fades into forgotten.

  58. As ferocious as her debate attacks were on Bloomberg, Warren should have went after Bernie just as hard. In addition to her response to the transboy at the LBTQ town hall, Warren also took money from a poor college student who felt compelled to give $3 of her remaining $6 toward the Warren campaign. And she gladly accepted it?!?!? Hokey at best! Bye, Elizabeth!

    1. She did. She called him out as a misogynist who said a woman couldn’t be president.

  59. “a quality I personally find highly electable”
    Which, the abuse or the comb?

  60. “tendency to blame all of Warren’s failings on sexism comes across as somewhat…sexist. Every time she loses, she is portrayed by some of her most ardent defenders as a victim, as though she has no control over her own campaign or her own choices.”

    – She has no control over being a woman.

    1. That’s so 20th century!!

  61. “the disastrous unveiling of her DNA test, which managed to make conservatives point and laugh.”

    – Conservatives are irrelevant to the Democratic primary.

  62. “her refusal to go on the most popular cable news network in America”

    – Again, conservatives are irrelevant to the Democratic primary. But could tactic promoting Fox news in this article.

  63. “her refusal to go on the most popular cable news network in America”

    – Fox News is irrelevant to Dems. But could tactic promoting Fox news in this article.

  64. Evil destroyed Warrens campaign. People finally saw her lies and Evil intent. The Democrat Party is an Evil that is destroying America. They try to take every moral value from our country and if you watch them you can see the Evil destruction in their eyes and by their actions. I am 80 years old and my days are numbered but for those of you that have a long life ahead you need to destroy this Evil before it eats you away like a Cancer.

  65. We all KNEW she lied about her ethnicity in order to be in a favored position at Harvard University. Most of us have had the “opportunity” to lie about something that would have advanced our standing in some way. In Warren’s case, lying about this to Harvard University had a LOT of influence upon her earning ability. For her it was a “no brainer.”

  66. No matter who gets anointed as a ruler, the ruled still suffer.
    Presently, worldwide, all governments are coercive by popular demand and coercion excludes reason, replacing it with violence and fraud, e.g., govt. lies about its goal. Govt., i.e., rulers, represent themselves while claiming to represent the public. The public expects violence by an elite to be constructive and reasonable. That has never been so and never will be so. That irrational expectation, that political goal, is why empires rise & fall. This myth is perpetuated by an elite, for an elite, to achieve exploitation of the masses as the public self-enslaves, make themselves the ruled, and defends their rulers.

  67. She finished third — behind a senile Fascist and a Communist who is still recovering from a heart attack — in the same state that sent her to the US Senate.

    Twice.

    It MUST be sexism.

  68. I have to confess to being a horrible Sextruthist. I blatantly discriminate against lying women in the most terrible ways imaginable!! And when I say I discriminate in the most terrible way imaginable what I mean is I don’t give them money votes and help to become the leader of the free world. Not being the leader of the free world is the new homeless.

  69. I have to confess to being a horrible Sextruthist. I blatantly discriminate against lying women in the most terrible ways imaginable!! And when I say I discriminate in the most terrible way imaginable what I mean is I don’t give them money votes and help to become the leader of the free world. Not being the leader of the free world is the new homeless.

  70. I feel her pain. It sucks to run for office in a country where 80% of the population is so stupid they can barely breathe air.

    1. “Does the air have a sex?”, asks the sexist 80% entirely wrapped up in identity politics (i.e. Democrats).

  71. Trump can be boorish and dismissive but he takes his act to certain level of a performance. And he has a bit of crowd pleasing charisma.

    Warren was just came off as a nasty and calculating. She looks like a mean faced little boy, to be honest. There was not an iota of warmth or personality about her. She ordered a “beef taco with no onion” at a Mexican joint and bragged about taking the last bucks from one of her supporters. That just screams “I came from an ivory tower in the east coast”.

    Whining is what these people. They want to dismantle the electoral college, but if the majority of voters voted against their policies, they’ll be like “the majority supported slavery too”.

  72. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online ………… Read more  

  73. Trump can be boorish and dismissive but he takes his act to certain level of a performance. And he has a bit of crowd pleasing charisma.
    https://bit.ly/2wGXfhi

  74. Give Katie Herzog a weekly column. She’s a better and more interesting writer than everyone else you have. Hell, the lesbian progressive Democrat from Space Needle City is more “libertarian” than at least half the staff.

  75. Katie, Finally someone said it. Thank You!

  76. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page,.. Read more

Please to post comments