Kamala Harris Ran on Abortions Up to Birth, But Got the Lowest Support From Women Since 2004

It’s not an iron-clad rule of thumb but pretty close. If a story starts out supporting a particular thesis, then jams a few (but oft-times telling) arguments against the thesis, and then finishes with a conclusion that supports the thesis, you would[LE1]  know the outcome of the story was predetermined.

So, you know “Will the U.S. Ever Be Ready for a Female President?” will end up attributing the losses of pro-abortion zealots Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris not to incompetence or alienating people of faith but to sexism and racism.

Lisa Lerer and Jess Bidgood begin by addressing the argument that Americans are ready to support a conservative woman for President. Former President Bill Clinton explained that “Ideologically, the people who are most likely to be against women are most likely to be conservative, so when people agree with you, it’s easier to be for them.” Is that not both condescending and the elitist position that so alienated everyday Americans?

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

Lerer and  Bidgood quickly dismiss that idea because no Republican woman has been the party’s nominee. The rest of the article talks about “After Vice President Kamala Harris’s defeat, a conversation that has frustrated and foiled two generations of female candidates rages on.”

Harris, whose ineptitude on the stump is legendary, is initially defended:

“People feel pretty stung by what happened,” said Liz Shuler, the first woman elected to lead the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the largest federation of unions in the country, who supported Ms. Harris and believes she made no significant missteps in the race. “She totally over-performed and yet fell short. So it does feel like that sucker punch of, like, ‘Wow, even when you do everything right, that glass ceiling is still elusive.’”

No “significant missteps in the face” and Harris “totally over-preformed”? Really? Her “missteps” go on and on and on.

To name just three: She began her campaign emulating Joe Biden: she went dark in the first few weeks, choosing to forgo a prime time opportunity to establish who she was and what she would campaign on; a strategic error of the first magnitude in choosing a dork for her vice president; and, in the end, never telling the American people what her campaign issues were, other than that she was not Donald Trump.

After bashing the electorate for a few more paragraphs, the truth finally comes out. Lerer and Bidgood write

Yet to chalk Ms. Harris’s loss up to sexism alone — and to the idea that women are held to a higher standard when seeking the White House — could also be a way of minimizing campaign missteps.

“Kamala Harris made a very bad decision in her choice of vice president. So that was her first big decision to make, and in my judgment, she did not choose well,” Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said of the selection of Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, a relatively untested national figure, as her running mate. Behind Ms. Harris and Mrs. Clinton’s losses, she added, “there were circumstances in the campaign that were unrelated to gender.”

Senator Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, who won a tough re-election race against a male candidate in November, said she saw more traditional political factors playing a larger role in Ms. Harris’s defeat, noting that she heard “very little focus” on her gender or the barrier-breaking potential of her candidacy.

“This was a change election. People — if people are expressing that they’re concerned about the direction of the country, they’re not going to vote for the incumbent party,” she said. “It has much more to do with that than I think the fact that Kamala Harris is a woman.”

What do the numbers tell us?

*Ms. Harris won the lowest level of support from female voters of any Democratic nominee since 2004, according to an analysis by the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

*A majority of white women continued to support Mr. Trump, a result that is consistent with their support for the Republican nominee in every race since 2004.

*Ms. Harris also made few, if any, inroads among key blocs of female voters: A smaller percentage of Latino and young women backed Ms. Harris than backed any other Democratic nominee since Barack Obama first ran in 2008.

That tells us that Americans do not buy into the identity politics which is part and parcel of the DNA of the Democrat party.

Except to Democrats, “Women” are not a monolith. Female Hispanics and Female Asian-Americans voted for Harris but not nearly by the margins they had voted previously.

Harris lost not because she was a woman/woman of color, but because she was a dreadful candidate and because President-elect Trump outworked her offering a litany of specific issues that the majority of Americans agreed with.

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.