Opinion - The Democrats’ misogyny trap

Why did Kamala Harris lose? According to a loud segment of the media, it was clearly the rampant misogyny and racism of a sick society.

The fact that inflation nearly tripled from the Trump administration to the Biden-Harris term, that the cost of a mortgage was up more than 80 percent, that millions more illegal immigrants poured across the border without consequence, and that two major, intractable wars started could not possibly be the reason.

To admit that Joe Biden’s term has been an economic and geopolitical failure would be just too painful. It’s so much more satisfying to put the blame on an amorphous concept like misogyny. And it’s easy, too — a woman lost, therefore misogyny.

The reality is, this kind of blame shifting is intellectually lazy and dishonest. To blame misogyny is not only certain to turn off millions of voters, but also likely to prove toxic when it comes time to select the Democratic nominee in 2028.

Winning the presidency is difficult. Only 40 individuals have been elected president in their own right. Meanwhile, there have been 61 general-election losers (counting the two major parties and serious “third party” candidates like Ross Perot). Fifty-nine of those losers were white men (Barack Obama puts black men at a potent 100 percent success rate) and two were women.

When you look at the nomination process, the number of losers is even higher. Starting in 1960, the first election where party primaries truly helped determine the nominee, 106 individuals have made it at least to the Iowa caucuses, plus the Kamala Harris de facto coronation. Only 22 of those individuals won their party’s nomination: 20 of 96 men (21 percent) and two of 10 women (20 percent). Black men do better, at two of seven (or 29 percent).

These numbers should not be shocking. The bar for seeking the presidency is not that high and there are a lot of bad politicians in the world. Winning takes a difficult combination of experience, intelligence, charisma, a capable campaign and luck. One mishandled moment can wreck a campaign.

The progressive-left identity warriors need to face another set of facts: both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris were mediocre candidates who had their respective paths cleared for them. Plus, they benefited greatly from male presidents handing them power.

Clinton is certainly intelligent, but is there any doubt that her prominence is due to her having married Bill Clinton? Her start in national politics was not good. She kicked a hornet’s nest when asked about her professional life, sneeringly saying she chose not to “[stay] home and bake cookies.” Clinton’s foray into remaking the American health care system was a political disaster and contributed to a Democratic massacre in the 1994 elections.

When she decided to run for the open New York U.S. Senate seat in 2000, Democratic grandees cleared the way for her, allowing her to coast past an underfunded nobody primary opponent. Her 12-point defeat of Republican Rick Lazio was not especially impressive, considering that Al Gore won New York by 25 points.

Clinton’s nomination in 2016 was similarly eased by the Democratic establishment. President Obama knee-capped his own vice president’s ambitions and her main opposition was Bernie Sanders, a candidate unacceptable to Democratic elites and a likely loser in any general election. Her 2008 loss to Obama was the one time her husband and the Democratic establishment did not successfully clear the way for her.

Similarly, Harris’s political experience is unimpressive. Thrust into the 2024 race, Harris last faced a serious Republican challenger way back in 2010, when she squeaked past Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley for attorney general. In her re-election, she easily defeated the GOP candidate after out-fundraising him 100:1.

For the U.S. Senate, she didn’t even have to face a Republican, as it was former Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez who survived the state’s “jungle primary” for the 2016 general election. In 2020, she dropped out before any of the primaries or caucuses, meaning that she had never been on the ballot on her own outside California.

Yes, Harris shrewdly positioned herself to be picked by President Biden for vice president —but satisfying the Democrats’ identity politics demands by being a woman and a minority didn’t exactly require much work. Not since the days of smoke-filled-room conventions has a major-party nominee been so inexperienced at national politics.

The bottom line is, winning the presidency is very difficult. Making it easy for any candidate because of gender or race is a big mistake. It is absurd to say a woman cannot be president just because two bad women candidates lost. For a woman to win, she must have worked her way to the nomination, surviving reversals and tough scrutiny. That’s how Margaret Thatcher became the UK’s prime minister in 1983 (and how Barack Obama won).

But it’s easy to see how the misogyny argument could go from convenient excuse to article of faith to demand. After all, the Democrats checked the ethnic minority box with Obama; now it’s time for a woman to be nominated and win. Never mind whether she has the chops to win.

And then there is the math of the matter. Disqualifying half the population only narrows the universe of candidates. Sure, that means some bad male candidates won’t be polluting the primary process, but it also means some potential winners are left out.

For the next three years, Harris is likely to lead in the polls for the Democratic nomination. But that is all name recognition and more than a little reflexive sympathy. If Trump has a bad time of it, her numbers will get better. But it still won’t mean she is the best candidate.

The more Democrats embrace the misogyny excuse, the more likely they are to force a female nominee on the ballot. They might strike gold, but so far it’s been fool’s gold.

Keith Naughton is co-founder of Silent Majority Strategies, a public and regulatory affairs consulting firm, and a former Pennsylvania political campaign consultant.

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.