, 13 tweets, 4 min read Read on Twitter

In the 2016 Democratic Primaries, Hillary Clinton got around 55% of the vote, Bernie got around 45%.

Current polls show approx: Warren 6%, Harris 8%, Klobuchar 1%, Gabbard 0%, Gillibrand 0%. That's a total of 15% of the vote going to women candidates, 85% to the men.
That means there's around 30% of the Democratic base (like 5 million people) who supported Hillary in 2020, are choosing a male candidate to support rather than one of the female candidates. Assuming she had 50/50 support, that is around 2.5 million women, give or take.
The notion in 2016, and even stronger today, is that you must inherently be a sexist if you prefer one of the males to the women. This is often said by women (as you'd imagine) If that's the case, why are there so many women (around 2.5 million)not supporting a woman candidate?
The easiest answer would be "they're sexist" - but, that's not the case, right? Of course not. They're Hillary Clinton Democratic Voters, half of which are women. They aren't sexist.

Could it just be that policy matters, maybe even more than gender, to most?
I want a woman POTUS badly, I think Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard would be trans formative, strong, honest leaders who would do an amazing job. I think Gillibrand would be great, and Kamala and Klobuchar would do a good job, too.
But, if someone supports one of the male candidates, maybe, including these million Hillary supporters, they're not inherently sexist.
The 2020 Dem Primary has more diversity in history:

A Jewish person
An openly gay man
Multiple white women
Multiple women of color
Multiple men of color
An unmarried man
A man without children
Multiple Christians
Straight white men
A Hindu woman
An Asian man
If the idea is equality to give everyone an equal chance, we've come pretty darn close to achieving it. If the goal is equity, where a woman candidate MUST win, why are we even bothering to run the men? Let's just change the rules to forbid them from running. /s
If a male and female candidate are similarly qualified, then sure, preferring the female in that case would make sense. Why not lift them up, breaking that glass ceiling and empowering women all across the world? I'm on board. However, calling each other sexist at the drop
of a hat because someone likes Pete Buttigieg instead of Kamala Harris, is just ridiculous. It cheapens actual sexism, that is alive and well, rather than solving the problem. It furthers divides us, it's immoral, and frankly, it's a sure fire way to lose in 2020.
To those that disagree - If you are a straight woman, and support a straight woman candidate, why are you not homophobic since we've never had a gay POTUS? Isn't that coming from privilege? And we are still allowed to push a straight woman, despite the oppression of gays?
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to James Ayotte
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!