Obviously there’s a little bit of a difference between the two: We don’t think anybody ever suspected Sen. Amy Klobuchar had a chance of winning the nomination, while for a little bit there, Elizabeth Warren was topping the polls and eviscerating competitors like Mike Bloomberg during the debates. Plus, Warren had a plan — just not a plan to come in third in her home state on Super Tuesday.
But The Stranger’s Katie Herzog asks a good question: Did the word “sexism” ever come up in regards to Klobuchar?
I don’t think I’ve seen a single person attribute Amy Kloubachar’s loss to sexism. Why is that?
— Katie Herzog (@kittypurrzog) March 5, 2020
Or Carly Fiorina.
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) March 5, 2020
Same for Gabbard.
— David Stachon (@davidstachon) March 5, 2020
Warren voters liked her because she was an angry woman, they wanted someone to represent their anger. Sexism is an excuse to continue in their anger instead of blaming her own shortcomings. Klobuchar and Gabbard are not angry enough, so they don’t exist as options for that crowd.
— Time Squanderer (@timesquanderer) March 5, 2020
Because unlike Warren… Amy is actually likable
and they need something to blame for Warren being unlikable https://t.co/42ALuV72Ot
— Jay Malak (@KobbeMalak) March 5, 2020
As we learned from the Hillary Clinton campaign, “unlikeable” is just a word misogynists use to disguise their hatred of women. No woman is unlikeable.
The media didn’t like her so saying not supporting her = sexism would implicate themselves.
— Chris Stamper (@CStamper_) March 5, 2020
last women standing gets to claim that…it's the rules
— justaplainGuy (@oneplainGuy) March 5, 2020
So, Tulsi.
— Tweet Critic (@M04788109) March 5, 2020
Or Tulsi's marginalization
— Jordan Henderson (@jordanhenderson) March 5, 2020
Or that Tulsi is constantly ignored.
— Aesthetic Distance (@aesthdistance1) March 5, 2020
Look at Tulsi. They won't even entertain the idea she has something meaningful to contribute.
— hohms law (@HunsuckerJenni) March 5, 2020
No, her problem is she’s a Russian asset, according to Clinton.
She's not considered the most perfect woman ever to have lived.
— BerkeleyGuy (@BerkeleyRox) March 5, 2020
Theory: The type of person who preferred Amy Klobuchar (which includes myself!) typically does not believe sexism to be the primary cause of their preferred candidate's loss.
— Ray Hsu (@Roflsaurus16) March 5, 2020
Because she’s more of a man than Booker, Beto, Pete, etc.
— Wesley Mullins (@wesleyamullins) March 5, 2020
Amy doesn’t lie. Calling Liz on her lies is failing to #BelieveWomen.
— Kerfuffle Actual? (@shoshido) March 5, 2020
Because she reminded every woman in existence of the female boss they hated the most.
— optinion ? (@optinion1) March 5, 2020
That makes a lot of sense.
She didn't ask her staff their safewords before physically and verbally abusing them which is a real turn-off
— Todos Para Biden (@TodosParaBiden) March 5, 2020
Because Amy didn't deserve to win: she didn't have the guts to lie about her race.
— Your Friend Ben Pobjie (@HartWexford) March 5, 2020
Yeah, @SpeakerPelosi didn't cry over @amyklobuchar either.
Or @KamalaHarris.
Or @SenGillibrand.
How very odd.
— Privileged Shitlord?? (@Priv_Sht_Lord) March 5, 2020
Because Warren's image from the beginning has leaned more heavily into identity politics. Attributing her failure to identity fits more easily into existing narratives.
— ThirstyMayor (@thethirstymayor) March 5, 2020
She didnt make gender a big part of her campaign
— Tom Drumpf (@DrumpfTom) March 5, 2020
Or promise to let a transgender child help decide on the Secretary of Education.
She wasn’t a good candidate?
— It's Buffoon (@buffoon_hero) March 5, 2020
Because the kind of person who worries about sexism supports Warren.
— Garrett M. Petersen (@GarrettPetersen) March 5, 2020
Clearly because she is a man.
— Cicero (@MarcusCicero63) March 5, 2020
cause… pic.twitter.com/kAvlfoMlqH
— Reverend Jimmy Stone (@JimmySt41761454) March 5, 2020
— Brig4Life (@Brig4L) March 5, 2020
Maybe because she looks like she has the strength and attitude required to punch somebody into unconsciousness?
— Paul Hiatt (@Scribe1969) March 5, 2020
She didn't play identity games, and you can't lose a game you're not playing. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
— Holy Hal (@Holy_Hal) March 5, 2020
What office was she running for?
— Colt Long (@ColtRight) March 5, 2020
We agree with the theory that the kind of person who would support Warren is also the kind who would blame sexism first — identity politics all the way.
Related:
‘Insulting to women’: Dana Loesch drops the mother of all self-awareness nukes on Dems ‘crying sexism over Warren dropping out’ https://t.co/ekS2D0I4uW
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) March 5, 2020
