David Dickson
@dickiddaveson.bsky.social
In other words:
I am not advocating "doing the same thing" or "not doing any research at all". I did not say those words, nor imply them.
I just consider your interpretation of the data here (which, to be fair, is a fairly common one these days) flawed.
I am not advocating "doing the same thing" or "not doing any research at all". I did not say those words, nor imply them.
I just consider your interpretation of the data here (which, to be fair, is a fairly common one these days) flawed.
December 9, 2025 at 11:57 PM
In other words:
I am not advocating "doing the same thing" or "not doing any research at all". I did not say those words, nor imply them.
I just consider your interpretation of the data here (which, to be fair, is a fairly common one these days) flawed.
I am not advocating "doing the same thing" or "not doing any research at all". I did not say those words, nor imply them.
I just consider your interpretation of the data here (which, to be fair, is a fairly common one these days) flawed.
To be sure:
I don't doubt that the next Dem nominee will likely be male--because most politicians, D and R, are male. That's not what I'm arguing to Tom here.
My argument is that reductively assuming gender to be an disadvantage (or advantage) is a bad idea, and not as savvy as one might think.
I don't doubt that the next Dem nominee will likely be male--because most politicians, D and R, are male. That's not what I'm arguing to Tom here.
My argument is that reductively assuming gender to be an disadvantage (or advantage) is a bad idea, and not as savvy as one might think.
December 9, 2025 at 10:41 PM
To be sure:
I don't doubt that the next Dem nominee will likely be male--because most politicians, D and R, are male. That's not what I'm arguing to Tom here.
My argument is that reductively assuming gender to be an disadvantage (or advantage) is a bad idea, and not as savvy as one might think.
I don't doubt that the next Dem nominee will likely be male--because most politicians, D and R, are male. That's not what I'm arguing to Tom here.
My argument is that reductively assuming gender to be an disadvantage (or advantage) is a bad idea, and not as savvy as one might think.
I think also beyond that, in both cases, voters were simply bored at having Dems in charge.
If (male) Joe Biden had stayed in the race, we probably would have seen a multi-single-digit Trump victory, much bigger GOP margins in the House, and worse.
We're learning a very shallow lesson from 2024.
If (male) Joe Biden had stayed in the race, we probably would have seen a multi-single-digit Trump victory, much bigger GOP margins in the House, and worse.
We're learning a very shallow lesson from 2024.
December 9, 2025 at 10:38 PM
I think also beyond that, in both cases, voters were simply bored at having Dems in charge.
If (male) Joe Biden had stayed in the race, we probably would have seen a multi-single-digit Trump victory, much bigger GOP margins in the House, and worse.
We're learning a very shallow lesson from 2024.
If (male) Joe Biden had stayed in the race, we probably would have seen a multi-single-digit Trump victory, much bigger GOP margins in the House, and worse.
We're learning a very shallow lesson from 2024.
Reposted by David Dickson
Beyond that:
If we assume women—based on our experience during the Trump era— to be definitionally suboptimal political candidates, we’re telling them we basically were bullshitting when we told them they could accomplish anything.
Speaking only for myself: Not worth it.
But again: YMMV.
If we assume women—based on our experience during the Trump era— to be definitionally suboptimal political candidates, we’re telling them we basically were bullshitting when we told them they could accomplish anything.
Speaking only for myself: Not worth it.
But again: YMMV.
December 9, 2025 at 10:23 PM
Beyond that:
If we assume women—based on our experience during the Trump era— to be definitionally suboptimal political candidates, we’re telling them we basically were bullshitting when we told them they could accomplish anything.
Speaking only for myself: Not worth it.
But again: YMMV.
If we assume women—based on our experience during the Trump era— to be definitionally suboptimal political candidates, we’re telling them we basically were bullshitting when we told them they could accomplish anything.
Speaking only for myself: Not worth it.
But again: YMMV.
Reposted by David Dickson
The lesson I take from those elections is that voters want good, likable candidates, leaders they like, and to feel happy and powerful—not that they “won’t vote for a woman as president”.
I get why others would land on the former take. I just consider it a fundamental error.
I get why others would land on the former take. I just consider it a fundamental error.
December 9, 2025 at 10:19 PM
The lesson I take from those elections is that voters want good, likable candidates, leaders they like, and to feel happy and powerful—not that they “won’t vote for a woman as president”.
I get why others would land on the former take. I just consider it a fundamental error.
I get why others would land on the former take. I just consider it a fundamental error.
Reposted by David Dickson
As far as I’m concerned, neither 2016 nor 2024 proved women to be suboptimal presidential candidates, any more than they proved voters to be ”bigots”.
Hillary Clinton had problems far beyond “being a woman”. Harris was running to succeed a president voters had deemed, however wrongly, weak and bad.
Hillary Clinton had problems far beyond “being a woman”. Harris was running to succeed a president voters had deemed, however wrongly, weak and bad.
December 9, 2025 at 10:17 PM
As far as I’m concerned, neither 2016 nor 2024 proved women to be suboptimal presidential candidates, any more than they proved voters to be ”bigots”.
Hillary Clinton had problems far beyond “being a woman”. Harris was running to succeed a president voters had deemed, however wrongly, weak and bad.
Hillary Clinton had problems far beyond “being a woman”. Harris was running to succeed a president voters had deemed, however wrongly, weak and bad.
Beyond that:
If we assume women—based on our experience during the Trump era— to be definitionally suboptimal political candidates, we’re telling them we basically were bullshitting when we told them they could accomplish anything.
Speaking only for myself: Not worth it.
But again: YMMV.
If we assume women—based on our experience during the Trump era— to be definitionally suboptimal political candidates, we’re telling them we basically were bullshitting when we told them they could accomplish anything.
Speaking only for myself: Not worth it.
But again: YMMV.
December 9, 2025 at 10:23 PM
Beyond that:
If we assume women—based on our experience during the Trump era— to be definitionally suboptimal political candidates, we’re telling them we basically were bullshitting when we told them they could accomplish anything.
Speaking only for myself: Not worth it.
But again: YMMV.
If we assume women—based on our experience during the Trump era— to be definitionally suboptimal political candidates, we’re telling them we basically were bullshitting when we told them they could accomplish anything.
Speaking only for myself: Not worth it.
But again: YMMV.
The lesson I take from those elections is that voters want good, likable candidates, leaders they like, and to feel happy and powerful—not that they “won’t vote for a woman as president”.
I get why others would land on the former take. I just consider it a fundamental error.
I get why others would land on the former take. I just consider it a fundamental error.
December 9, 2025 at 10:19 PM
The lesson I take from those elections is that voters want good, likable candidates, leaders they like, and to feel happy and powerful—not that they “won’t vote for a woman as president”.
I get why others would land on the former take. I just consider it a fundamental error.
I get why others would land on the former take. I just consider it a fundamental error.
As far as I’m concerned, neither 2016 nor 2024 proved women to be suboptimal presidential candidates, any more than they proved voters to be ”bigots”.
Hillary Clinton had problems far beyond “being a woman”. Harris was running to succeed a president voters had deemed, however wrongly, weak and bad.
Hillary Clinton had problems far beyond “being a woman”. Harris was running to succeed a president voters had deemed, however wrongly, weak and bad.
December 9, 2025 at 10:17 PM
As far as I’m concerned, neither 2016 nor 2024 proved women to be suboptimal presidential candidates, any more than they proved voters to be ”bigots”.
Hillary Clinton had problems far beyond “being a woman”. Harris was running to succeed a president voters had deemed, however wrongly, weak and bad.
Hillary Clinton had problems far beyond “being a woman”. Harris was running to succeed a president voters had deemed, however wrongly, weak and bad.
My response to that is: Let's take gender out of it as best we can.
If the optimal candidate happens to be a woman, great. If not, great.
But let’s not go down the merry garden path of presuming women are “suboptimal candidates”, even against the likes of MAGA.
Down that road lies peril.
If the optimal candidate happens to be a woman, great. If not, great.
But let’s not go down the merry garden path of presuming women are “suboptimal candidates”, even against the likes of MAGA.
Down that road lies peril.
December 9, 2025 at 10:12 PM
My response to that is: Let's take gender out of it as best we can.
If the optimal candidate happens to be a woman, great. If not, great.
But let’s not go down the merry garden path of presuming women are “suboptimal candidates”, even against the likes of MAGA.
Down that road lies peril.
If the optimal candidate happens to be a woman, great. If not, great.
But let’s not go down the merry garden path of presuming women are “suboptimal candidates”, even against the likes of MAGA.
Down that road lies peril.
That’s it, right here
Polis was sane until late last year—in fact, his whole brand was “I’m not those MAGA nutjobs”.
Guessing he got bored dominating the state so thoroughly, started re-connecting with old Silicon Valley bros, and decided to bake his brain on Elon Musk’s site for a bit.
Whoops. 😕
Polis was sane until late last year—in fact, his whole brand was “I’m not those MAGA nutjobs”.
Guessing he got bored dominating the state so thoroughly, started re-connecting with old Silicon Valley bros, and decided to bake his brain on Elon Musk’s site for a bit.
Whoops. 😕
December 9, 2025 at 8:33 PM
That’s it, right here
Polis was sane until late last year—in fact, his whole brand was “I’m not those MAGA nutjobs”.
Guessing he got bored dominating the state so thoroughly, started re-connecting with old Silicon Valley bros, and decided to bake his brain on Elon Musk’s site for a bit.
Whoops. 😕
Polis was sane until late last year—in fact, his whole brand was “I’m not those MAGA nutjobs”.
Guessing he got bored dominating the state so thoroughly, started re-connecting with old Silicon Valley bros, and decided to bake his brain on Elon Musk’s site for a bit.
Whoops. 😕
Trump is counting on Governor Polis letting his clear Twitter overuse lead him down a merry garden path to pardon Tina Peters.
Mark it.
That may be a futile hope—but it may be the reason why Trump hasn’t attempted to fulfill his campaign promise to send goons to the Denver area.
Mark it.
That may be a futile hope—but it may be the reason why Trump hasn’t attempted to fulfill his campaign promise to send goons to the Denver area.
December 9, 2025 at 8:25 PM
Trump is counting on Governor Polis letting his clear Twitter overuse lead him down a merry garden path to pardon Tina Peters.
Mark it.
That may be a futile hope—but it may be the reason why Trump hasn’t attempted to fulfill his campaign promise to send goons to the Denver area.
Mark it.
That may be a futile hope—but it may be the reason why Trump hasn’t attempted to fulfill his campaign promise to send goons to the Denver area.
Likely he’s just online a lot.
One of the lighter themes of Internet news these days is misbehaving travelers—and a constant refrain in that is “Back in muh day, my pop pop would wear a suit on the train/plane automobile; I say we bring that back, along with God in schools.”
He knows his themes.
One of the lighter themes of Internet news these days is misbehaving travelers—and a constant refrain in that is “Back in muh day, my pop pop would wear a suit on the train/plane automobile; I say we bring that back, along with God in schools.”
He knows his themes.
December 9, 2025 at 8:18 PM
Likely he’s just online a lot.
One of the lighter themes of Internet news these days is misbehaving travelers—and a constant refrain in that is “Back in muh day, my pop pop would wear a suit on the train/plane automobile; I say we bring that back, along with God in schools.”
He knows his themes.
One of the lighter themes of Internet news these days is misbehaving travelers—and a constant refrain in that is “Back in muh day, my pop pop would wear a suit on the train/plane automobile; I say we bring that back, along with God in schools.”
He knows his themes.
Also, I don’t think voters genuinely gave a fig about gender one way or another in 2024.
Those citing it as a reason for their Trump vote are doing the same excusey song-and-dance as those who said “The economy is awful” and “Oh, Biden’s so old”.
They were bored, and needed to touch a hot stove.
Those citing it as a reason for their Trump vote are doing the same excusey song-and-dance as those who said “The economy is awful” and “Oh, Biden’s so old”.
They were bored, and needed to touch a hot stove.
December 9, 2025 at 6:24 PM
Also, I don’t think voters genuinely gave a fig about gender one way or another in 2024.
Those citing it as a reason for their Trump vote are doing the same excusey song-and-dance as those who said “The economy is awful” and “Oh, Biden’s so old”.
They were bored, and needed to touch a hot stove.
Those citing it as a reason for their Trump vote are doing the same excusey song-and-dance as those who said “The economy is awful” and “Oh, Biden’s so old”.
They were bored, and needed to touch a hot stove.
Full disclosure:
I do not think Harris herself to be the optimal 2028 candidate.
But I do think, given the environment, circumstances, and process at the time, she likely was the optimal 2024 candidate.
We risk learning the wrong lesson, long term, by reducing this to gender(or anything like it).
I do not think Harris herself to be the optimal 2028 candidate.
But I do think, given the environment, circumstances, and process at the time, she likely was the optimal 2024 candidate.
We risk learning the wrong lesson, long term, by reducing this to gender(or anything like it).
December 9, 2025 at 6:20 PM
Full disclosure:
I do not think Harris herself to be the optimal 2028 candidate.
But I do think, given the environment, circumstances, and process at the time, she likely was the optimal 2024 candidate.
We risk learning the wrong lesson, long term, by reducing this to gender(or anything like it).
I do not think Harris herself to be the optimal 2028 candidate.
But I do think, given the environment, circumstances, and process at the time, she likely was the optimal 2024 candidate.
We risk learning the wrong lesson, long term, by reducing this to gender(or anything like it).
As in, “Tell me again why we’re doing this thing I think to be a political mistake”
not as in, “Why are we nominating Obama again”
😉
not as in, “Why are we nominating Obama again”
😉
December 9, 2025 at 6:14 PM
As in, “Tell me again why we’re doing this thing I think to be a political mistake”
not as in, “Why are we nominating Obama again”
😉
not as in, “Why are we nominating Obama again”
😉
That is the kind of reasoning that sounds very savvy and wise, until it’s not. 🤷♂️
”I would rather not lose to Republicans a third time; why are we nominating this ‘Obama’ fellow again”
—More Democrats Than I Could Count, mid-2008
”I would rather not lose to Republicans a third time; why are we nominating this ‘Obama’ fellow again”
—More Democrats Than I Could Count, mid-2008
December 9, 2025 at 5:57 PM
That is the kind of reasoning that sounds very savvy and wise, until it’s not. 🤷♂️
”I would rather not lose to Republicans a third time; why are we nominating this ‘Obama’ fellow again”
—More Democrats Than I Could Count, mid-2008
”I would rather not lose to Republicans a third time; why are we nominating this ‘Obama’ fellow again”
—More Democrats Than I Could Count, mid-2008
See also: The mid-2010’s fad of getting rid of university libraries and replacing them with “collaboration spaces”.
Examples: Georgia Tech, UCF, Florida Tech, etc. etc. etc.
All of it pushed by a small number of university megadonors and connected tech assholes.
Looks like a dumb decision today.😕
Examples: Georgia Tech, UCF, Florida Tech, etc. etc. etc.
All of it pushed by a small number of university megadonors and connected tech assholes.
Looks like a dumb decision today.😕
December 9, 2025 at 5:12 PM
See also: The mid-2010’s fad of getting rid of university libraries and replacing them with “collaboration spaces”.
Examples: Georgia Tech, UCF, Florida Tech, etc. etc. etc.
All of it pushed by a small number of university megadonors and connected tech assholes.
Looks like a dumb decision today.😕
Examples: Georgia Tech, UCF, Florida Tech, etc. etc. etc.
All of it pushed by a small number of university megadonors and connected tech assholes.
Looks like a dumb decision today.😕
WTF
What in the hell is wrong with this dude
What in the hell is wrong with this dude
December 9, 2025 at 5:03 PM
WTF
What in the hell is wrong with this dude
What in the hell is wrong with this dude
I say this to friends at SpaceX; they always, invariably respond with “I don’t pay attention to politics.”
Tough. Politics is like physics. You can “not pay attention to it” if you want; it will still have its way with you.
Tough. Politics is like physics. You can “not pay attention to it” if you want; it will still have its way with you.
December 9, 2025 at 5:46 AM
I say this to friends at SpaceX; they always, invariably respond with “I don’t pay attention to politics.”
Tough. Politics is like physics. You can “not pay attention to it” if you want; it will still have its way with you.
Tough. Politics is like physics. You can “not pay attention to it” if you want; it will still have its way with you.
The bitterly ironic thing is: He’ll never make it to Mars.
Landing humans on Mars is a serious, brutally hard task, harder than the Moon landings by an order of magnitude.
It requires serious leadership and serious people even to have a shot in the dark.
Elon is unserious and unworthy.
Landing humans on Mars is a serious, brutally hard task, harder than the Moon landings by an order of magnitude.
It requires serious leadership and serious people even to have a shot in the dark.
Elon is unserious and unworthy.
December 9, 2025 at 5:44 AM
The bitterly ironic thing is: He’ll never make it to Mars.
Landing humans on Mars is a serious, brutally hard task, harder than the Moon landings by an order of magnitude.
It requires serious leadership and serious people even to have a shot in the dark.
Elon is unserious and unworthy.
Landing humans on Mars is a serious, brutally hard task, harder than the Moon landings by an order of magnitude.
It requires serious leadership and serious people even to have a shot in the dark.
Elon is unserious and unworthy.