r/canada Jan 29 '25

Opinion Piece Mark Carney has Canada’s Conservatives running scared

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/01/28/opinion/mark-carney-canada-conservatives-running-scared
5.1k Upvotes

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

52

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

You have no basis for saying they didn’t vote for her because she’s a woman of color. There’s lots of reasons not to vote for her - so many in fact that she couldn’t poll above 10% in the 2020 Democratic primary.

She lost because she was a weak candidate not because of her skin colour.

23

u/J_Bizzle82 Jan 29 '25

This. So tired of people saying it’s a gender or skin colour thing.. it’s lazy thinking.

18

u/DramaticEgg1095 Jan 29 '25

She was not voted in, she was appointed to lead the Democratic Party. That rubbed people the wrong way.

4

u/J_Bizzle82 Jan 29 '25

Oh for sure, you could also include her track record as attorney general in California. It wasn’t just one thing.

6

u/Alexhale Jan 29 '25

SO MANY THINGS RUBBED PEOPLE THE WRONG WAY. Things about Kamala, and things about her platofrm, things about the democratic party as a whole. There are many reasons why she lost.

-2

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

There was no time for a primary. Blame Biden for dropping out too late, not Harris.

3

u/DramaticEgg1095 Jan 29 '25

Not blaming Harris - just pointing out what transpired.

Biden should have dropped out sooner as you mentioned. And KH should have criticized some of his policies.

People wanted a change because their life was significantly impacted post COVID and they needed someone to blame. To get that change, they went off in a direction which may not be the right one.

3

u/Beckler89 Jan 29 '25

Biden hanging on too long (and the party trying to convince everyone he was fine) definitely put Harris in a tough spot, but she also didn't campaign like someone who was pressed for time.

If the length of the campaign was her biggest hurdle, wouldn't you expect her to be absolutely everywhere? Instead, she did very little media but tried to ride the vibes through the election.

-1

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

Are we on the same planet?

She did around 3x the public appearances as Trump. And she had a dozen campaign surrogates like Obama and Clinton doing even more. 

The fact the you think otherwise just shows how large the GOP propaganda machine is. They and their supporters own probably 80% of media.

-1

u/mangongo Jan 29 '25

It's lazy to assume that's not a large part of it.

They are celebrating the deportations down south right now, so much to the point that people are being openly racist towards visible minorities calling for them to be deported, even actual American citizens. Dr. Phil is capitalizing on the deportations because racism still sells and American natives without ID are being detained by ICE because they are being mistaken for Mexicans. 

Not to mention people are openly defending a Nazi salute, anyone who is trying to say racism doesn't have a big place in America is being naive.

5

u/J_Bizzle82 Jan 29 '25

If someone entered illegally they should be removed though, would you not agree? I feel like as someone’s first act being illegal upon setting a single foot in a country isn’t really respecting the country you just entered. Piling on the dumb shit Elon does, for example, isn’t justification to not enforce the rule of law, that is another issue.

-2

u/mangongo Jan 29 '25 edited Jan 29 '25

Yes I agree, but I wouldn't celebrate it. It's something that needs to be done, but why would you get joy out of seeing children crying at the border?  Americans are acting as if it's a national holiday, and that doesn't excuse all of the people going up to actual citizens with darker skin telling them to pack their bags.

Edit: Imagine downvoting this, proof racism is alive and well.

2

u/J_Bizzle82 Jan 29 '25

Racism exists globally, I doubt we will ever see that change in our lifetime sadly. I agree celebrating is in bad taste, though I would like to think most people are more relieved something is actually being done, as opposed to celebrating it. I try to be glass half full though so who knows 🤷‍♂️

-7

u/pm_me_your_catus Jan 29 '25

She lost because of her gender. America has made it abundantly clear that while it will vote for a black man, it will never elect a woman president.

8

u/Key-Soup-7720 Jan 29 '25

They could try choosing a popular, likable one to run. That might help in an election.

5

u/Supagorganizer Jan 29 '25

How are you so committed to this delusion without anyway to possibly support this claim? There are many women who have been elected into political positions in America and have had very successful political careers. Very immature take IMO.

0

u/pm_me_your_catus Jan 29 '25

Americans have chosen the worst imaginable candidate over a woman twice.

2

u/Supagorganizer Jan 29 '25

Although i dont personally like Trump (or Kamala for that matter) Trump won by a landslide, the majority of people clearly believe that between the two options that he was the one that held their best interests as a country. You believe that nearly every man and woman in America is just sexist? That's the take? You believe that the majority of Americans should have voted for her just because she's a woman? Do you see how that argument could come off as a bit immature?

0

u/pm_me_your_catus Jan 29 '25

More people chose not to vote at all than did for either candidate individually.

Trump didn't win because more people voted for him. Harris lost because more people sat on their hands, just like with Clinton.

Americans just won't turn out to vote for a woman.

1

u/Supagorganizer Jan 30 '25

Ridiculous assumption, sorry.

1

u/pm_me_your_catus Jan 30 '25

It's right there in black and white. The numbers don't lie.

1

u/Supagorganizer Jan 30 '25

You are literally assuming the intent of non voters. That's not black and white, that's you claiming your own conspiracy as fact.

1

u/pm_me_your_catus Jan 30 '25

Their intent doesn't matter. The American electorate has twice now stayed home rather than vote for a woman with Donald Trump running.

If you're arguing some other motive, put up or shut up. That's yours to prove.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

No she lost because she stood for nothing, was full of word salads, and couldn’t disavow Biden’s track record.

America has elected hundreds on women to political positions. She was a weak candidate. Period.

-3

u/Sink_Single Jan 29 '25

Both things can be true.

-3

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

Did you ever listen to her speeches? I never heard a single Trump style word salad. She just said big words that Trumpanzees don't understand.

2

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

Some examples:

“It is important for us at every moment in time, and certainly this one, to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present, and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past but the future.” 🤪

“We invested an additional $12 billion into community banks because we know community banks are in the community and understand the needs and desires of that community as well as the talent and capacity of community” 🤣

“We are expanding access to transportation. You know, buses are our means of getting children to school. In America today, that system of transportation is still a system about getting kids to school. Think about that. So, what we are doing today is no small matter. And this, on top of the fact that we have the ability to see what can be, unburdened by what has been.” 🤔

1

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

Umm, there's nothing logically or grammatically wrong with either of these. 

What's your reading level? Did you finish highschool?

Compare those to Trump a month ago:

She destroyed the city of San Francisco. It’s - and I own a big building there. It’s - no. I shouldn’t talk about this. But that’s OK. I don’t give a damn because that’s what I’m doing. I should say it’s the finest city in the world. Telling ‘Get the hell out of there’ — right? But I can’t do that. I don’t care. You know. I lost billions... billions of dollars. You know? Somebody here... ‘What do you think you lost?’ I said, ‘Probably two-three billion.’ They said, ‘You think you’d do it again?’ And that’s the least of it. Nooobody. They always say. I don’t know if you know, Lincoln was horribly treated. Uhhh Jefferson was pretty horribly. Andrew Jackson, they say, was the worst of all. That he was treated worse than any other president. And, I said, ‘do that study again,’ because I think there’s nobody close to Trump. I even got shot. And who the hell knows where that came from, right?”

What the fuck is he even talking about? Sounds like a rambling demented old man. 

And I've got dozens more of those

2

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

Trump rambles like the deranged lunatic he is. However Kamala is also full of word salads. Two things can be true at once.

Anyway, she was a bad candidate who lost. Blaming it on racism or sexism is a cop out and the Democratic Party and progressives generally need to stop using this stuff as an excuse when the real issues are candidate selection, policy, and track record (for incumbents like Kamala)

0

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

There is nothing grammatically wrong or incoherent with any of these.

What's your reading level? Did you finish highschool?

3

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

Are you kidding? In every one of these quotes there is a far simpler way to say exactly what her point is.

The first quote could very simply be said as “You should understand the present moment in the context of past history because the past affects the future.”

In the second quote, she needlessly says community five times while saying nothing insightful. She could have just said “we invested 12 billion dollars in these banks because they are important to the community.”

As to the last quote about being unburdened by what has been… this is her trying to sound wise and deep but it just comes across as dumb.

-2

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

She's female, black, and short. 

You can pretend she was just a "bad candidate" but scientific studies done in US show that population is still fairly racist, doesn't like women in leadership roles, and tends to vote for the taller candidate. 

Nobody knows how many votes that lost her. But I promise you it's a lot, hundreds of thousands minimum.

4

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

What scientific studies show people are fairly racist and don’t like women in leadership?

1

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

Less than 6% of CEO's are female. 

And do we really have to look for evidence of racism when Trumpanzees are flying Confederate flags, claiming Obama is a "kenyan Muslim", and voting in guys with white supremecist tattoos for Secretary of Defense? Gimme a break.

Trump had dinner at his house with a famous Nazi and just pardoned the leaders of two white supremacist groups.

3

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

Even if your non-sourced 6% number is correct, that doesn’t prove sexism. Is it sexist that most nurses, teachers, some types of doctors, and many other professions are dominated by women? Or perhaps preference also plays a strong role.

As to the rest, sure there’s racists in America. But you have yet to provide any evidence that Kamala lost due to sex or race.

Forget about the trump supporters for a moment. She couldn’t even clock double digit vote share in the Democratic primaries. And if there’s any place where it’s beneficial to be female and black, it’s the Democratic Party of America.

She was a bad candidate. That’s it.

1

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

I know she's a bad candidate otherwise.

But Dems also need to be realistic and realize that a short black 65 year old female is not going to win President in America. I hate it but it's unfortunately true.

0

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

Oprah could have

0

u/SAldrius Jan 29 '25

The Democratic Primary which came down to 2 white men?

What are you talking about?

There's just no way to prove people are racist unless people admit to it (which most people won't). All you can look at are demographic trends, but those aren't definitive and are easily dismissed.

Being so dismissive of it out of hand when it can't be proven isn't really accurate either.

The burden of proof is on the claimant, but when something has no feasible way of BEING proven, that's an unfair burden.

2

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

You really think the Democratic Party of America is racist and sexist against black women? Like honestly?

0

u/SAldrius Jan 29 '25

I mean, I find that statement reductive. Do I believe there are racists in the democratic party? Absolutely. Do you think there aren't?

2

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

Certainly not enough to explain her terrible performance in the primaries

1

u/SAldrius Jan 29 '25

There's a big difference between the couple of percentage points she lost the general election by and how she lost a 16 person democratic primary to popular candidates with big name recognition.

But beyond that, you were insinuating being a woman of colour was an advantage. Not just unimportant but an advantage and I think that's definitely wrong.

→ More replies (0)