The problem is that last one:

The vast majority of Americans (80%) support the U.S. government’s deportation of migrants without permanent legal status who have been convicted of a violent crime.

How far can “violent” and “conviction” be stretched in order to justify wrongful deportations?

If I was religious I would definitely think he was the devil quoting scripture.

I mean even men hate men at times; this male here would much prefer a female candidate so it slices both ways.

Reality remains: true bigots; trust sexists were only ever voting conservative, regardless if it was Obama, Biden, or a female like Harris or AOC. So that alone is a non-starter.

Buddy, I was just adding context and it seems you took it personally or something. Yous aid alongside and I clarified that Sanders was performing better. Just facts. That’s all.

Quaint deflection.

a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.

Now intersect that with actual reachable swing-voters and Democrats.

Like I said: that tracks for core dyed-in-the-wool MAGA trash that we will never win nor want beneath our banner.

Let’s not make Faustian bargains, shall we?

Edit: Also, your facts are just incorrect, as well as interpretation:

a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.

• 23% is not 33%.
• 57% say America is “ready” and 20% were “not sure”
• Answering the question whether the rest of America is “ready” is not answering whether you believe a woman could be President.

To make it even more clear for you: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/madame-president-changing-attitudes-about-woman-president

Public willingness to vote for a woman

In 1937, the first time the public was asked by Gallup about its willingness to vote for a female president, the question included the caveat “if she were qualified in every other respect.” Gallup removed that phrase, with its implications, and tried a new version in 1945, asking, “If the party whose candidate you most often support nominated a woman for President of the United States, would you vote for her if she seemed best qualified for the job?” The results remained the same, with about one-third saying yes.

In 1948, the country was split on a new version of this question, which identified the woman candidate as qualified, but not “best” qualified. The final wording became settled in 1958 and has been asked repeatedly since. Large gains were made over the 1970’s and the proportion answering yes has continued to rise, reaching 95% in the most recent poll.

Americans may say they are willing to vote for a woman, but when asked to assess the willingness of others, people have not been as optimistic about women’s chances of winning the presidency. In 1984, when NBC asked likely voters if they were ready to elect a woman president, only 17% said yes. Substantial shares of the population have remained skeptical, though the most recent poll found the lowest proportion who believe the country is not yet ready.

She polled among the general population alongside Bernie Sanders.

If Sanders outperforms Hillary with the general population against their competitor, then they are not “alongside” — Sanders is, in fact, ahead.

Word definitions matter!

Instead of being a gatekeeping sexist, I’m going to continue to reiterate (for lack of evidence and also because it’s the right thing) that sex / gender of the candidate does not matter in the slightest, and the only thing that matters are their policies, their authenticity, and their charisma — male, or female.

Also because there hasn’t been a lick of evidence to suggest Harris lost because she’s a woman. Also because, as I pointed out and you conveniently ignored: All actual sexists were never reachable votes for Democrats in the first place.

We don’t need them, and we don’t fucking want them.

I think it’s hilarious that if we put Tim Kaine or Biden himself (who was losing by a larger margin than Harris in polling) in, they would’ve lost just the same if not more so… Yet you wouldn’t be here saying, “Golly gee-wizz, I think people are sexist and tired of old white men! I mean, the majority registered voters ARE women after all!” — Therein revealing one’s own gatekeeping sexist dogma.

Unlike you I imagine, I actually door-kncoked on GOP and Independent households so yes, dare I say I’ve gone outside while in a battleground state no less.

I say again because there has been no evidence provided to the contrary: There is no evidence Harris lost because she was a woman. Put another way, if we placed Biden in her position or if we placed an identical copy of Harris as a male, she too would’ve lost for a multitude of factors beyond the fact she was a woman (again, because no actual sexist fuck was reachable in the first place for Democrats and never are).

Actually Bernie Sanders was outperforming Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchups against Trump poll after poll.

Ar… Are you really going to use Samples N=1 and N=2 as some sort of statistical relevance? Wtaf?

This logic is most asinine. By that logic, the vast majority of Presidential losses were of white men, and my sample is higher!

Two non-charismatic inauthentic candidates lost, and race and gender had little to do with it because the bigots already coalesce under the maga banner; the problem was that their lack of vision, charisma, authenticity led to the reachable swing-voters either sitting on the couch, or voting for Trump on failed perceptions that he was better for the economy.

This has fundamentally zero bearing on the actual outcome of the Presidential election; moreover there are many less female candidates seeking office in the first place. Yes, sexism exists — that’s not in dispute —but sexist voters were never in reach in the first place, whether it was Harris, Biden, Hillary, or Obama.

• A majority of registered voters are women.

• A majority of actual voters are consistently women.

There is just as much risk of women getting pissed off and protesting and staying home because they are tired for voting male candidates.

There is zero evidence a woman cannot win. You just can’t run inauthentic consultancy-crafted non-charismatic candidates, and BOTH Hillary and Kamala were. Mind you, the same holds true for men. Go ahead and just try to run Tim Kaine and see what happens, I dare you.

This made all the more clear by the fact that the vast vast vast majority of misogynistic sexist bigots are already a firm part of the conservative maga base —And so they were Never. Up. For. Grabs in the first place.

I remember bullshit like this being spewed about Obama, too. “Obama is too green!” “a black man could NEVER be president. We have never had one before, after all!” (Or are you too young to remember that? I forget there are adults on here now who weren’t even 2-years-old when he was elected.)

… Cue him defeating 2 white successful men by large margins. Doh. Think this through and stop parroting wedge-driving sexist gatekeeping conservative propaganda.

This is complete and total gatekeeping (actual sexism) bullshit that is frequently parroted but not actually analyzed with a modicum of depth, for one actually did, they would realize it has no bearing in reality. If anyone wants me to explain why, I will happily do so.

100% agreed!

PSA: there is an inbound showdown between Saikat Chakrabarti (AOC’s 2018 campaign manager and Justice Democrats co-founder) and an AIPAC center-right Democrat hack for Pelosi’s seat.

They’ve always claimed that. It has always been bullshit.

Well duh.

Venture over to OpenSecrets.org and observe just who the #1 donor for Schumer, Gillibrand, and Jeffries is and you’ll know why.

Fair points! In my mind I guess I was thinking cyber truck vs. Rivian truck.

Rivian seems better in literally every way, isn’t it?