It is great news to hear that Democratic Presidential contender Michael Bloomberg has decided, that if he does not win the nomination, he will use part of his fortune to help defeat Donald Trump.
For any candidate, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, to decide to reject such support would be totally stupid, even with their commitment to wish to tax multi millionaires and billionaires, and to refuse corporate support.
This is not a time to “play games”, as the urgency is to remove the cancer of Donald Trump from the Presidency, with all of the tremendous damage he has done in both domestic and foreign affairs, and also in his appointment of nearly 200 federal judges, that if added to further, will totally undermine all of the good work done by Presidents and Congresses in the 20th and early 21st centuries.
In fact, billionaire Tom Steyer should also agree to contribute massive amounts of his fortune, on a smaller scale than Bloomberg, to the Democratic effort to excise Trump from office, and hold him legally accountable as a private citizens for his sins and transgressions, which are massive in number and depth!
We need all the help we can get to get rid of the monster.
Ronald writes, “This is not a time to “play gamesâ€, as the urgency is to remove the cancer of Donald Trump from the Presidency, with all of the tremendous damage he has done in both domestic and foreign affairs, and also in his appointment of nearly 200 federal judges, that if added to further, will totally undermine all of the good work done by Presidents and Congresses in the 20th and early 21st centuries.â€
REMINDER:
‘How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately “elevated†Donald Trump with its “pied piper†strategy’
By Ben Norton (11.09.2016)
https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
Republican Donald Trump, a far-right demagogue who campaigned on a slew of bigoted, xenophobic policies, has won the 2016 presidential election in a shocking victory few people predicted.
What was not often acknowledged in Trump’s heated race against Democrat Hillary Clinton, however, was how her campaign fueled his rise to power.
An email recently released by the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks shows how the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party bear direct responsibility for propelling the bigoted billionaire to the White House.
In its self-described “pied piper†strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new “mainstream of the Republican Party†in order to try to increase Clinton’s chances of winning.
The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called for using far-right candidates “as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right.†Clinton’s camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be “elevated†to “leaders of the pack†and media outlets should be told to “take them seriously.â€
The strategy backfired — royally.
On April 23, 2015, two weeks after Hillary Clinton officially declared her presidential campaign, her staff sent out a group message with information for a “strategy call.†The email included as an attachment a “memo for the DNC discussion.â€
The memo, which was addressed to the Democratic National Committee, outlined “the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field.â€
The document stated, “Clearly most of what is contained in this memo is work the DNC is already doing. This exercise is intended to put those ideas to paper.â€
It continued, “Our hope is that the goal of a potential HRC campaign and the DNC would be one-in-the-same: to make whomever the Republicans nominate unpalatable to a majority of the electorate.â€
The memo articulated a three-point strategy. Point 1 called for forcing “all Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election.â€
At the time, there were more than a dozen Republican presidential candidates. The “variety of candidates is a positive here,†the Clinton campaign said.
“Many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right,†the memo noted.
“In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,†the Clinton campaign wrote.
As examples of these “pied piper†candidates, the memo named Donald Trump — as well as Sen. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson).
“We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously,†the Clinton campaign concluded.
This document was part of the tens of thousands of emails to and from John Podesta, the chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, which were released by WikiLeaks.
Other messages published by the whistleblowing organization show how, while the Clinton camp was facilitating the rise of Trump, it was systematically undermining the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s left-wing opponent.
Leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee show that the organization, which is supposed to be bound to impartiality, sabotaged Sanders’ insurgent presidential campaign, which had mobilized millions of people and inspired a massive grassroots movement.
Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist, repeatedly warned in the primary that he would have a greater chance of defeating Trump. Poll after poll showed that he would have beaten Trump in the general election by wide margins. Instead, his candidacy was repressed — and now Clinton has lost to Trump.
Trump and Clinton were the least popular major-party presidential nominees in U.S. history, according to an August poll. An October report cited Sanders as the most popular political figure in the country.
Ronald writes, “It is great news to hear that Democratic Presidential contender Michael Bloomberg has decided, that if he does not win the nomination, he will use part of his fortune to help defeat Donald Trump. | For any candidate, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, to decide to reject such support would be totally stupid, even with their commitment to wish to tax multi millionaires and billionaires, and to refuse corporate support.â€
This does not make sense.
Michael Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders are not aligned.
REMINDERS:
‘Michael Bloomberg: Medicare-for-all “would bankrupt us for a very long timeâ€â€™
By Caroline Kelly and Cristina Alesci (01.29.2019)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/bloomberg-medicare-for-all/index.html
Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg said Tuesday that replacing private, employer-provided health insurance was financially impossible and a Medicare-for-all system, a popular progressive policy, would not work in the US.
“I think we could never afford that,” Bloomberg said, addressing pin factory employees in Nashua, New Hampshire. “We are talking about trillions of dollars.”
“I think you could have Medicare-for-all for people who are uncovered, but that’s a smaller group,” he added. “But to replace the entire private system where companies provide health care for their employees would bankrupt us for a very long time.”
Bloomberg made the comments after Democratic presidential candidate California Sen. Kamala Harris voiced her support for the policy Monday night at a CNN town hall and specifically said private insurance as we know it would have to end.
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who is weighing a possible 2020 run as an independent candidate, said Tuesday that Harris’ comments supporting the end of private insurance were “not American.”
“That’s not correct. That’s not American,” he said on CBS Tuesday morning. “What’s next? What industry are we going to abolish next, the coffee industry? The Republicans want to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. I don’t agree with that. The Affordable Care Act should stay and be refined. To think to get rid of the insurance industry, this is the situation, it’s far too extreme from both sides.”
Harris could be a potential competitor for both Schultz and Bloomberg, as they consider whether to run for president.
Unlike the schedule for many of Bloomberg’s trips last year, his agenda in New Hampshire is packed with openly political events. His Tuesday started with a question-and-answer session at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College, a popular campaign stop for presidential candidates, before heading to Nashua for a tour of the oldest pin manufacturer in the country and a pizza lunch with factory employees there.
Bloomberg will also visit a coffee shop in Dover where he’ll meet with Billy Shaheen, husband of Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. Billy Shaheen orchestrated Jimmy Carter and John Kerry’s New Hampshire primary wins.
The New York Democrat also expressed doubt at Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to tax Americans with a net worth over $50 million at 2% and an additional 1% levy on billionaires.
“I think the Constitution lets you impose income taxes only so it’s probably unconstitutional,” he said.
Bloomberg added that the US shouldn’t be embarrassed over its capitalistic system, contrasting the success of American capitalism with the failed system in Venezuela.
“We need a healthy economy and we shouldn’t be embarrassed about our system,” he said. “If you want to look at system that’s not capitalistic, just take a look at what was once one of the wealthiest countries in the world and now people are starving to death: it’s called Venezuela.”
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Doubling down on his anti-Medicare for All messaging in December 2019:
‘Bloomberg warns “Medicare-for-all†would reelect Trump, pitches plan to build on ObamaCare’
By Andrew O’Reilly, Alexandra Rego
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bloomberg-medicare-for-all-reelect-trump-pitches-plan-expand-obamacare
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg slammed his Democratic presidential primary rivals on Thursday for their “Medicare-for-all†proposals, claiming their plans are “more likely to reelect Donald Trump†than they are to bring health insurance to more Americans.
Bloomberg, who was speaking at a library in Memphis, Tenn., was announcing his own health care proposal when he tore into the “Medicare-for-all†plans being pushed by fellow candidates such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
“We don’t need Medicare-for-all proposals that are more likely to reelect Donald Trump than expand coverage,†Bloomberg said.
Bloomberg instead proposed a “Medicare-like public option†that would be administered by the federal government but paid for by customer premiums. The plan would first target uninsured, low-income residents in states that haven’t expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
The billionaire businessman also wants Medicare to include an optional policy covering dental, hearing and vision care, and to require all states to cover oral health services for adults in Medicaid, along with capping out-of-network charges at 200 percent of Medicare rates.
“My proposal will build on what works, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act [ACA],†Bloomberg said. “We’ll make sure that people who like their private insurance can keep private insurance, while also providing coverage to the uninsured.â€
Additionally, Bloomberg’s own proposal calls for lengthening the sign-up period for buying health insurance through the ACA, which has been shortened under President Trump from 90 days to 45 days. If elected president, he would defend ObamaCare as it faces a lawsuit brought by Texas and other states threatening to overturn the health care law, the candidate added.
“During his first two years in office, the number of uninsured people in America increased by two million,†Bloomberg said of President Trump. “Today thanks to Donald Trump, more Americans do not have insurance, more Americans have to decide between going to the doctors or putting food on the table.â€
He added: “The president has never proposed a plan to cover the 20 million people who would lose coverage†by scrapping ObamaCare.
The former New York City mayor’s health care plan also would require all insurance plans to meet the standards set under the ACA such as covering maternal care and preexisting conditions.
To pay for the plan, Bloomberg said that the proposal would cost approximately $1.5 trillion over 10 years and would be offset by policies that lower costs, including capping provider payments, ending surprise medical bills, negotiating drug prices and reforming Part D. He said some of the funding would also come from the existing federal budget.
His campaign said that more details on how he plans to pay for the plan will be released in the coming weeks.
Bloomberg’s plan is similar to ones proposed by some of the more moderate Democratic presidential hopefuls such as former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
Biden’s plan calls for expanding the ACA — the signature health care law created during then-President Barack Obama’s administration in which Biden served as vice president — along with pushing to add a “public option†that would allow people to select a government health insurance plan, while others could continue using their private insurance.
“I understand the appeal to Medicare-for-All. But folks supporting it should be clear that it means getting rid of Obamacare. And I’m not for that,†Biden said over the summer. “I was very proud the day I stood there with Barack Obama and he signed that legislation.â€
Buttigieg’s health plan would offer a public option that includes automatic and retroactive enrollment for anyone without a private plan.
That by Salon is a bunch of BS!
Hillary was warning that Trump was dangerous, yet too many stupid fools didn’t believe her, opting instead to believe lies that were spreading around about her on Facebook, Twitter, etc.
The real ones who elevated Trump was the media.
Mainstream media – Too many pundits weren’t calling out Trump’s lies.
Internet Left-wing media – Some of them sided with Russia.
Social media – Facebook, Twitter, etc. weren’t doing anything to combat the Russian disinformation campaign.
All of that is why I’m extremely picky about who I read on the internet and who I watch on TV.
D – Enough about the past. Concentrate now on the effort to remove the horrible creature from the White House.
Ronald writes, “It is great news to hear that Democratic Presidential contender Michael Bloomberg has decided, that if he does not win the nomination, he will use part of his fortune to help defeat Donald Trump. | For any candidate, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, to decide to reject such support would be totally stupid, even with their commitment to wish to tax multi millionaires and billionaires, and to refuse corporate support.â€
This does not make sense.
Michael Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders are not aligned.
And Michael Bloomberg is not to be trusted.
REMINDERS:
‘Michael Bloomberg: Medicare-for-all “would bankrupt us for a very long timeâ€â€™
By Caroline Kelly and Cristina Alesci (01.29.2019)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/bloomberg-medicare-for-all/index.html
Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg said Tuesday that replacing private, employer-provided health insurance was financially impossible and a Medicare-for-all system, a popular progressive policy, would not work in the US.
“I think we could never afford that,†Bloomberg said, addressing pin factory employees in Nashua, New Hampshire. “We are talking about trillions of dollars.â€
“I think you could have Medicare-for-all for people who are uncovered, but that’s a smaller group,†he added. “But to replace the entire private system where companies provide health care for their employees would bankrupt us for a very long time.â€
Bloomberg made the comments after Democratic presidential candidate California Sen. Kamala Harris voiced her support for the policy Monday night at a CNN town hall and specifically said private insurance as we know it would have to end.
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who is weighing a possible 2020 run as an independent candidate, said Tuesday that Harris’ comments supporting the end of private insurance were “not American.â€
“That’s not correct. That’s not American,†he said on CBS Tuesday morning. “What’s next? What industry are we going to abolish next, the coffee industry? The Republicans want to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. I don’t agree with that. The Affordable Care Act should stay and be refined. To think to get rid of the insurance industry, this is the situation, it’s far too extreme from both sides.â€
Harris could be a potential competitor for both Schultz and Bloomberg, as they consider whether to run for president.
Unlike the schedule for many of Bloomberg’s trips last year, his agenda in New Hampshire is packed with openly political events. His Tuesday started with a question-and-answer session at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College, a popular campaign stop for presidential candidates, before heading to Nashua for a tour of the oldest pin manufacturer in the country and a pizza lunch with factory employees there.
Bloomberg will also visit a coffee shop in Dover where he’ll meet with Billy Shaheen, husband of Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. Billy Shaheen orchestrated Jimmy Carter and John Kerry’s New Hampshire primary wins.
The New York Democrat also expressed doubt at Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to tax Americans with a net worth over $50 million at 2% and an additional 1% levy on billionaires.
“I think the Constitution lets you impose income taxes only so it’s probably unconstitutional,†he said.
Bloomberg added that the US shouldn’t be embarrassed over its capitalistic system, contrasting the success of American capitalism with the failed system in Venezuela.
“We need a healthy economy and we shouldn’t be embarrassed about our system,†he said. “If you want to look at system that’s not capitalistic, just take a look at what was once one of the wealthiest countries in the world and now people are starving to death: it’s called Venezuela.â€
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Doubling down on his anti-Medicare for All messaging, almost a year later, in December 2019:
‘Bloomberg warns “Medicare-for-all†would reelect Trump, pitches plan to build on ObamaCare’
By Andrew O’Reilly, Alexandra Rego (12.19.2019)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bloomberg-medicare-for-all-reelect-trump-pitches-plan-expand-obamacare
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg slammed his Democratic presidential primary rivals on Thursday for their “Medicare-for-all†proposals, claiming their plans are “more likely to reelect Donald Trump†than they are to bring health insurance to more Americans.
Bloomberg, who was speaking at a library in Memphis, Tenn., was announcing his own health care proposal when he tore into the “Medicare-for-all†plans being pushed by fellow candidates such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
“We don’t need Medicare-for-all proposals that are more likely to reelect Donald Trump than expand coverage,†Bloomberg said.
Bloomberg instead proposed a “Medicare-like public option†that would be administered by the federal government but paid for by customer premiums. The plan would first target uninsured, low-income residents in states that haven’t expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
The billionaire businessman also wants Medicare to include an optional policy covering dental, hearing and vision care, and to require all states to cover oral health services for adults in Medicaid, along with capping out-of-network charges at 200 percent of Medicare rates.
“My proposal will build on what works, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act [ACA],†Bloomberg said. “We’ll make sure that people who like their private insurance can keep private insurance, while also providing coverage to the uninsured.â€
Additionally, Bloomberg’s own proposal calls for lengthening the sign-up period for buying health insurance through the ACA, which has been shortened under President Trump from 90 days to 45 days. If elected president, he would defend ObamaCare as it faces a lawsuit brought by Texas and other states threatening to overturn the health care law, the candidate added.
“During his first two years in office, the number of uninsured people in America increased by two million,†Bloomberg said of President Trump. “Today thanks to Donald Trump, more Americans do not have insurance, more Americans have to decide between going to the doctors or putting food on the table.â€
He added: “The president has never proposed a plan to cover the 20 million people who would lose coverage†by scrapping ObamaCare.
The former New York City mayor’s health care plan also would require all insurance plans to meet the standards set under the ACA such as covering maternal care and preexisting conditions.
To pay for the plan, Bloomberg said that the proposal would cost approximately $1.5 trillion over 10 years and would be offset by policies that lower costs, including capping provider payments, ending surprise medical bills, negotiating drug prices and reforming Part D. He said some of the funding would also come from the existing federal budget.
His campaign said that more details on how he plans to pay for the plan will be released in the coming weeks.
Bloomberg’s plan is similar to ones proposed by some of the more moderate Democratic presidential hopefuls such as former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
Biden’s plan calls for expanding the ACA — the signature health care law created during then-President Barack Obama’s administration in which Biden served as vice president — along with pushing to add a “public option†that would allow people to select a government health insurance plan, while others could continue using their private insurance.
“I understand the appeal to Medicare-for-All. But folks supporting it should be clear that it means getting rid of Obamacare. And I’m not for that,†Biden said over the summer. “I was very proud the day I stood there with Barack Obama and he signed that legislation.â€
Buttigieg’s health plan would offer a public option that includes automatic and retroactive enrollment for anyone without a private plan.
Bernie and Elizabeth are going at it. Democrats, by doing petty things like this, are going to shoot themselves in the foot and cause Rump to be re-elected for another 4 years.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-iowa_n_5e1b6709c5b6da971d17cd1a
Attacking policies is ok, but attacking another candidate’s potential voters is not ok.
What’s so wrong with educated voters? Educated suburban type voters are a big part of the swing to Dems in recent elections since 2016, and are absolutely a swing demographic that the nominee needs to specifically go for.
Bloomberg is committed to taking Trump out. That’s what I care about.
This nails it…
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/01/14/are-democrats-trying-to-self-destruct/
We’ve all heard the term “raging liberal.†Derogatory in nature, the term refers to passionate, vocal left-wing Democrats. But it’s time to add a new moniker to the political lexicon: “Angry moderate.â€
After 19 years serving as a government lawyer at the Departments of Justice and the Treasury, I fall squarely into this camp. My two decades in Washington have taught me that progress comes slowly. It comes in increments. It comes through the politics of the possible. And while my level of anger may very well match that of the raging liberal, I believe that the sanest approach Democrats can take in this election is to scrap any purity tests for its candidates.
To repair the damage President Donald Trump has wrought on the country and our democratic institutions, one thing must happen above all else: a Democrat must win the White House. Yet the most progressive wing of the party has been creating undue hurdles for Democrats to successfully oust Trump. It’s like watching a train wreck about to happen.
The first obstacle: certain self-imposed donor restrictions that the candidates have elected to implement. To be sure, some self-imposed campaign finance restrictions are reasonable and consistent with Democratic values. Indeed, here’s the good news: None of the 2020 hopefuls are taking corporate PAC money this year.
But some other self-imposed restrictions have become burdensome and unnecessary tests of progressive purity. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have foregone large dollar closed fundraisers throughout the primary, which is true to their brands and pleases devoted supporters. Warren, like Sanders, has also rejected Super PAC money and funds from fossil fuel and pharmaceutical company donors, likewise true to brand. Both Sanders and Warren have relied on a high volume of small-dollar grass-roots donations and have rejected big dollar, limited-access campaign fundraisers. Thus far, that has been immensely successful for their campaigns. They have shown the tremendous power of small, online contributions. And Warren’s admirable selfie-lines set the standard for candidate accessibility. Their commendable approach should be the model going forward.
But for 2020, the Sanders and Warren approach may be tantamount to tying an arm behind their respective backs. This model remains in test mode. Democratic voters and activists as a whole are not yet fully “trained†on the new way of operating and supporting candidates. Warren has pledged to reject large-dollar fundraisers through the general election if she becomes the nominee. That level of purity is where the red flag goes up.
Simply put, Democrats cannot afford to bring a cheese knife to a gun fight. Big dollars will be necessary to win in 2020. Between being the incumbent, having Russian bots on his side, and having foreign dollars pour into his coffers, Trump will have the edge—financial and otherwise—over the eventual Democrat nominee.
With the stakes higher than ever before, now is not the time to say “no†to money just because it’s coming from very wealthy, high-net-worth individuals. Large donations from rich people who want to defeat Trump should be welcomed. In fact, there’s no reason a candidate shouldn’t collect big checks in a fancy home. Democrats need all the legitimate help they can get to save the country from a lawless and reckless president.
No one is suggesting that Democrats allow big donors to replace and out-influence the broader voting public, or the grassroots activists who flock to rallies. Nor should Democrats accept donations from shady special interests or become beholden to big corporations. But they also shouldn’t kiss much needed funds goodbye. Conventional fundraisers can and should continue, at least through 2020, to serve as supplementary vehicles for accumulating the funds necessary to beat Trump and the GOP machine. Once the Democrats regain the White House and the majority in both houses of Congress, we can revisit the notion of discouraging big-dollar wine cave fundraisers.
No doubt, it is difficult to convince elected officials to get rid of a system that helps them politically. That will become a necessary priority, but it has to be put on hold. In other words, liberal activists and thought leaders will need to ramp up pressure on campaign finance reform once Democrats take back control of Washington.
Donations are not the only area where progressives are self-defeating. Demanding nothing less than Medicare for All, after the herculean effort it took to pass the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is not conducive to securing a White House win. A November 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows the public option approach continues to be more viable than Medicare-for-All.
Democrats can agree that we want all Americans to have health care. But pushing for a highly unrealistic legislative jujitsu—with a heart-attack inducing price tag—in a highly competitive general election isn’t worth the risk of four more years of a dangerous, racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, and incurious president.
A more modest health care reform proposal, such as Phillip Longman’s idea of Medicare Prices for All, could cause dramatic improvements without alienating much-needed voters. Add to that a number of democracy reforms to prevent the GOP from holding the country hostage through minority rule, and Democrats will have a winning message palatable to most Americans.
As of this writing, recent Iowa polling shows that Sanders and Warren are overtaking Biden and Pete Buttigieg. Undoubtedly, many Americans are energized by the ideals of Sanders and Warren. But when Democrats latch onto the extreme, such as with donor purity or unrealistic domestic policy proposals, they box themselves in. At a time when Democrats need to be practical, they are at risk of self-destruction.
Democrats, independents, and open-minded Republicans, who will be watching Tuesday night’s debate closely, are collectively holding their breath to see whom the party chooses as its nominee. The first indication will come in less than a month, when Iowa holds the first-in-the-nation caucus.
Until then, remember: it doesn’t matter whether you think of yourself more as a “raging liberal†or an “angry moderate.†It doesn’t matter whether you consider yourself more of a Bernie guy or a Biden girl. This election is about nothing less than saving democracy. The pain you feel today will be just a fraction of what you will feel if Democrats lose in 2020 because the left allowed purity tests to come at the expense of beating Trump.
The latest in the Bernie-Elizabeth Warren brouhaha is that Bernie supposedly told her that a woman can’t win. Well, the record number of women throughout the country who have won seats to local, state, and federal offices in recent years would like to disagree with that assessment.
The idea that a woman can’t win a election for president is ridiculous. Hillary received almost 4 million votes more than Trump. That she lost because of 77,000 votes in four states is not in any way “proof†that a woman couldn’t win.
There is no “glass ceiling†anymore. Hillary cracked that open in 2008, when she started as the clear favorite candidate of a major party. She ground the shards into dust in 2016, in spite of ultimately losing the election because of quirks in the Electoral College.
Was the idea of a woman President a factor in her loss? Certainly. But not the defining factor. Being Black was certainly a factor for Obama, in both elections, but not a defining one.