On Super Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) came in third in her home state of Massachusetts and fourth in Oklahoma, the state in which she grew up. The humiliating damage to her 2020 presidential aspirations couldn’t be ignored, and she dropped out two days later.

As Mike noted, the media appears to have been hardest hit (after Warren herself).  They were behind her all the way and often twisted themselves into disconcerting displays of cognitive dissonance to excuse, downplay, and/or completely ignore her extensive list of negatives.  None of which, by the way, had anything to do with her being a woman.

Despite going all-in for Warren, the media couldn’t influence actual Democrat primary voters.  The media’s lack of power, its inability to sway even their own “side,” must be a bitter pill to swallow.

As she plummeted in polls and fundraising, Warren’s rank desperation evidenced itself in ever more outrageous pandering and utterly insane pledges.  We covered many of them here at LI.

She also had several campaign controversies arise that certainly didn’t help her win over hesitant Democrat primary voters.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the left is wailing that Warren was rejected by Democrat primary voters because sexism! misogyny!

Indeed, we are being treated to the most appalling avalanche of self-obsessed lefties bemoaning the fact that Warren didn’t cut it with Democrat primary voters.  We’re informed from the self-satisfied perches of the leftist elite that she is perfect and would make the perfect president if only America weren’t such a seething pit of anti-woman hate.

The New York Times published a hilarious piece entitled, “I Am Burning With Fury and Grief Over Elizabeth Warren. And I Am Not Alone.”

Consider every moment, since the dawn of woman, when a female aspired but to no avail. She asked to attend school but was denied. She raised her hand but wasn’t called on. She applied but wasn’t hired. She enlisted but wasn’t deployed. She created but wasn’t credited. She ran but wasn’t elected.

Imagine the sadness and frustration of every such instance as a spark, their combined energy the size of many suns. That is the measure of grief and fury I felt rise inside me as I watched Elizabeth Warren’s bid for the Democratic nomination wane.

When Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, it hurt in similar ways but didn’t surprise me. Out here in the red hinterlands, it was plain to some of us that centrist ideas did not excite in times of historic inequality. This election, though, I thought Senator Elizabeth Warren — a class revolutionary to match the moment — might go to the White House.

The overwrought tone of this piece is ludicrous.  Beyond ludicrous.  It’s the “Dear Diary” ravings of an adolescent, and I half expected to find an angst-ridden sophomoric poem amid the hyperbolic drivel.

Over at the Guardian, we learn that the entire Democrat party is now in jeopardy because Warren didn’t win the nomination.  Or something.

The internal factionalism and wild hatred within the Democratic party makes either candidate, be it Biden or Sanders, much more likely to lose in November. And the advanced ages of both of the two remaining major candidates means that even if one of them wins the presidency in November, it remains a real question whether they can feasibly run for a second term.

And so, win or lose, the long, contentious and often hateful Democratic primary cycle will be repeated in four years for the 2024 cycle, further fracturing and handicapping the party, no matter what.

All of this could have been avoided if the media and the electorate were less blinded by cynicism, sexism and fear and more willing to see Warren for who she was – the most capable, competent and kindest candidate in the race.

As a woman, the Massachusetts senator always faced an uphill battle of double standards and misogynist resentment.

It takes a special kind of stupid to come up with, much less submit for publication, this bizarre and hugely inaccurate analysis.

CNN has to CNN:

The fresh debate over the role sexism played in Warren’s exit raged on social media, just as it did when Harris left the race in December, when New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand got out last summer and when Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar departed on Monday.
“This is so heartbreaking, and it feels so damn personal,” writer Jill Filipovic, the author of “The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness” said on Twitter. “How many times, in how many contexts, have we seen a smart, competent, dynamic woman who is so head & shoulders above everyone else in the room get ignored or pushed out? How many times have we wondered – was I that woman?”
. . . . No matter how many times Biden showed the weakness of his candidacy or his inability to excite crowds in Iowa and New Hampshire, some voters reasoned that he’d still be a tougher candidate against Trump because of his maleness.

“His maleness” is why Democrat primary voters preferred Biden to Warren?  Seriously?

And  then there’s this:

It’s a “woman’s turn” to become the most powerful person in the free world? That’s how they want us to vote, based on identity politics and which pet demographic or “intersection” hasn’t had a “turn.”

At the Nation, they are living in some weird parallel America where women are (metaphorically?) chained to the stove, barefoot, pregnant, and wondering why they can’t vote or own property.

The following is from their article entitled, “Sexism Sank Elizabeth Warren,” and running with the following subhead:  “Warren was a brilliant candidate who would have made a great president. The problem? She’s a woman—and she isn’t ‘perfect’.”

We live in a deeply sexist culture, and that misogyny is broadcast and reinforced through every cultural vector available. It is internalized, by men and women, and it takes intentional reflection and deprogramming to even start to break free from its grip.

And yet, despite the best efforts of many thinkers and activists to get America to start treating half of its population as equal members of the country, our best shot at electing a woman president probably involves the Republicans’ finding a woman who is willing to kidnap other women to make men feel strong.

. . . . But what makes the Warren experience all the more frustrating is that she is the candidate Democrats asked for back in 2016. This is the candidate Democrats said they wanted when they were busy calling Hillary Clinton “inauthentic” and “uninspiring” and “pandering.” She was the candidate progressives used to explain that, while Clinton was a “corrupt, neoliberal shill,” they were totally not sexist and would vote for some other woman.

Over at Vox, we are told we need to “reckon with the role sexism played in the 2020 Democratic primary.”

Many women are left feeling defeated after Elizabeth Warren’s exit from the presidential race.

With a crushing loss on Super Tuesday, and voter after voter quoted in the media saying they’d vote for a woman, just not Warren, it made some wonder if a woman would be president in their lifetimes. Warren spoke about the bind women candidates face while talking with reporters Thursday afternoon.

“Gender in this race — you know, that is the trap question for every woman,” Warren said, standing outside her home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, after announcing she would be suspending her campaign Thursday. “If you say, ‘Yeah, there was sexism in this race,’ everyone says, ‘Whiner.’ And if you say, ‘There was no sexism,’ about a bazillion women think, ‘What planet do you live on?’”

For the second time in four years, an exceptionally qualified female candidate lost to her male counterparts — some objectively far less qualified. Warren’s loss was not as sudden or shocking as Hillary Clinton’s in 2016. But what stung for many was the depth of voters’ rejection, so much so that Warren came in third in her home state of Massachusetts on Super Tuesday.

It sounds like someone needs “cuddle services.” ASAP.

One of the most bizarre and truly sad instances of the denial implicit in all of these assertions that sexism and misogyny doomed Warren’s campaign happened on Twitter.

Twitchy has the whole sad, shameful thing.

It’s actually very simple, and President Trump summed it up very well.  Warren is untalented, mean-spirited, and people just don’t like her.

Watch (you won’t be sorry. It’s a mic drop moment if ever there was one):

For her part, Warren seemed to indicate that she will run again in 2024:

“One of the hardest parts of this is all those pinky promises and all those little girls who are gonna have to wait four more years,” Warren said, her voice cracking, referring to promises she often makes with young girls on the campaign trail about women running for president. “That’s gonna be hard. … I take those pinky promises seriously.” [emphasis mine]

A lot can and will happen between now and then, but one thing seems certain, she will remain a darling of the media and assorted elites who will never bother to wonder what actually happened to Warren’s 2020 campaign.  They are content to paint America as sexist (and all the other ists, phobics, etc.).

As they have shown since 2016, they are not the least bit curious about how people outside their bubble actually think and feel . . . or why the media is no longer the least bit influential.  Instead, they look out now and then and proclaim us all beneath contempt.  And then, when they predictably lose, they feel justified in their assessment. If we weren’t racists/sexists/whateverists-phobes, goes their sloppy and shallow thought process, we’d do what they want.

Ultimately, all those isms are a self-fulfilling, self-validating prophecy that doesn’t require its purveyors to do any actual thinking or work and will forever leave them befuddled, angry, and bitter. Burning, in other words, with the fury and grief of their own shallow thinking, self-imposed isolation, unearned elitism, and blinkered ignorance.

 

 
donate
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.