Hopes of woman president fade four years after Hillary Clinton’s election defeat
ELIZABETH WARREN’S withdrawal from the contest for the Democratic Party’s nomination for the presidency has left many asking why American voters seem so reluctant to elect a woman to the Oval Office.
Hillary Clinton may have got millions more votes than Donald Trump in 2016 but she was beaten to the top job by a candidate who pitched his campaign perfectly to the swing voters in the battleground states and therefore won the all-important Electoral College.
Ms Warren’s departure after a campaign that had promised so much leaves only one woman, Tulsi Gabbard, in the race but it would need a miraculous turnaround for her to secure the nomination.
Instead, Mr Trump looks set to face an older man in November, either former vice president Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders.
Ms Warren’s exit, coming after the one-time frontrunner could not win a single state on Super Tuesday, brought home a new and painful reality to some voters.
If 2019 was the Year Of The Woman, with a record number of women sworn into Congress and a record number launching presidential campaigns, 2020 was another Year Of The Man in presidential politics.
Polling during a string of primaries has revealed the durability of doubts about female candidates and electability.
At least half of Democratic primary voters believe a woman would have a harder time than a man beating Mr Trump, according to AP Votecast polling in four states that voted on Tuesday.
What is more, women are somewhat more likely than men to say so.
That comes even as solid majorities of those voters say it is important to elect a woman president in their lifetime.
The message is clear: We want a woman, but not this time.
As she announced her departure on Thursday night,
Ms Warren’s voice cracked when she talked about meeting so many little girls while campaigning around the country the past year, knowing they
“are going to have to wait four more years”, at least, to see a woman in the White House.
And she addressed what she called the “trap question” of gender in the race.
“If you say, ‘Yeah, there was sexism in this race,’ everyone says, ‘Whiner!’” she said.
“And if you say, ‘No, there was no sexism,’ about a bazillion women think, ‘What planet do you live on?’”
How different things had looked back in the summer, when Ms Warren and five other women, a record number, appeared on the primary debate stage over two nights in late June, demonstrating the depth and diversity of the female field.
Ms Warren and California Senator Kamala Harris earned top reviews for their debate skills.
At the time, Debbie Walsh, director of the Centre For American Women And Politics at Rutgers University, had ventured to hope the female candidates could shake up the age-old electability question left hanging by Mrs Clinton’s stinging loss to Trump in 2016:
Is the country ready to elect a woman president?
But this week, Ms Walsh was left to muse on how early Democratic primary voters were acting out of fear and caution and were buying “a false narrative out there that women candidates are too risky”.
“There was all this talk after that, trying to explain, ‘How did Donald Trump happen?’ And this caution and fear has largely motivated us to the place we are right now.”
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar peaked with a third-place finish in New Hampshire but fell fast after failing to build the sort of racially diverse coalition needed to win a Democratic primary.
Ms Warren’s third-place showing in Iowa was her best, despite building a large national operation and surging last summer to the top tier.
Hawaii Representative Ms Gabbard remains in the race but has picked up only two delegates, hundreds behind the two men leading the race.
“There are still a lot of biases about women becoming president,” said Mrs Clinton recently. “We just have to keep going until we crack that final glass ceiling.”