It is, as they say, the political season. Sure, it’s about six months until the first primary votes get cast/caucused, but, being who I am and having the interests I do, I’ve been paying lots of attention, consuming news and analysis, reading books written by a few of the more interesting democratic candidates, and tossing a few five dollar contributions out to state candidates who could really use it, and to a couple of the democratic primary candidates who I think ought to be in the discussion (given that the debate participation standards count number of donors, not number of dollars, it makes sense).

Lots of the talk thus far, as it often is this far out, has to with that nebulous quality of “electability”, which is definitely something to consider, certainly, because people do vote emotionally and on personal connections as well as on policy proposals. The problem with “electability” as a factor, though, is that everyone defines it differently, and often uses it to mask their true feelings, especially when those feelings are things that might not be socially acceptable.

One of the big stories that popped up this week that got a lot of discussion was this one from Axios, describing a small women’s focus group in Appleton, Wisconsin, which, according to the headlines, determined the group “like(d) Warren’s policies more than her”. The big money quote in the article was this one:

“I like what she had to say, but I still think she’s — sorry — a bitch,” said Jill T., a 56-year-old Trump voter, who later indicated that she preferred the left-leaning policies to right-leaning policies.

While I pretty wholeheartedly disagree with Jill T.’s descriptor (even if, as Tina Fey and Amy Poehler accurately assessed way back in 2008, Bitches Get Stuff Done), I recognize that, even among women (at least of a certain age or cultural disposition), there’s still significant resistance to women in places of political leadership. That Axios piece quotes all the greatest hits, like “…won’t be looked upon as a leader…”, “…might fail as president because she’s ‘too emotional’…”, “pushover”; the only one missing (and yes, I CTRL-F’d it just be sure I didn’t miss it) was shrill.

But, let’s get back to “bitch”. The adjectives that would be used to define that term; tough, non-nonsense, aggressive; etc…are the same kinds of words that have been used by the same cadre of people who support the current president because “He says what he means” and “tells it like it is” and “a straight shooter”, etc.

It’s amazing the difference the presence or absence of a Y chromosome makes, huh?

Leaving gender aside, we can reach back to 2000 or 2004 and talk about the whole “which candidate would you rather have a beer with“ measure, which, again, plays into that whole nebulous personality/likeability factor. Per the first article linked in this paragraph, our current president nailed that rubric back in 2016, for whatever reason; the general consensus is that he seemed “genuine” or “relatable.”

On the surface, for some people, sure, I guess. Personally, as someone who’s spent his share of time chatting with strangers up against the rail at one of my city’s many fine breweries, I see him as the boorish guy at the end of the bar that gets just a little too loud, sexist and racist, and who always, for obvious reasons, has a few empty stools between him and the rest of the joint’s patrons, regardless of how busy the taproom is.

Whereas, I expect Liz Warren (or Kamala Harris, or Pete Buttigeig, or Beto O’Rourke, or probably most of the other twenty still left for that matter) would be a splendid drinking companion; she’s intelligent, passionate, by all accounts has a wonderful sense of humor, and I imagine she’d be a great conversationalist. Also, I expect we’d have more than a few life experiences is common, which is more than you can say about your average rust belt pipe-fitter and a born-into-money-NY-real-estate-scion (and, like the last guy those on the right wanted to have a beer with, allegedly doesn’t drink anyway).

Or, I dunno, I just prefer the company of thoughtful, intelligent people who legitimately seem to care about their fellow humans? Who knows…I’ve always been aware that my particular experience, especially since I reached the age of majority or thereabouts, has been different than a lot of the folks who track in these metrics when it comes to political candidates. I’m probably not going to enjoy the company of the same sorts of people, and that’s fine. However, I do also want to see those sorts of people (and all Americans) do well, and support policies that further that aim (like accessible health care, affordable education, fair trade practices, etc), as do the candidates I tend to favor.

Their interest, in the end, really is my interest; what’s good for most Americans is good for all of us. Rest assured, even if I can’t convince them to not vote against their self-interest, my vote will be in support of their welfare, as well as mine.