Maloney: Democratic “sexist systems and misogyny” are why I lost to Nadler

Source: Hot Air

Sounds about right to me. Let’s go with that!

Is it true? Seems doubtful, but who are we to dispute career House Democrat Carolyn Maloney? After Democrats dumped her in favor of fellow career House Democrat Jerrold Nadler long after both should have been sent packing, Maloney blamed the “sexist systems and misogyny” in place for her defeat … in a Democratic primary:

After Rep. Jerry Nadler cruised to victory over Rep. Carolyn Maloney in Tuesday’s contentious Democratic primary to represent New York’s 12th Congressional District — ousting his longtime colleague after three decades in office in the process — Maloney whined that she was the victim of “sexist systems and misogyny” as her supporters vented their wrath at her victorious opponent.

“I’m really sad that we no longer have a woman representing Manhattan in Congress,” Maloney told her teary-eyed boosters, later adding: “In Congress, it is that when women are at the table, great decisions get made.”

The longtime lawmaker also thanked great female New York leaders of the past like Shirley Chisholm and Geraldine Ferraro, who Maloney said “fought sexist systems and misogyny that continues today, as we know from my own campaign” — an obvious dig at Nadler.

The mood had been even uglier about an hour earlier, as a celebratory Nadler addressed his supporters on the Upper West Side. Maloney’s backers at her party in Chelsea booed and jeered the House Judiciary Committee chair’s televised speech, with some yelling “Traitor!”

Democrats being sexist and misogynist? As I said above … sure, sounds like a great explanation to me! Perhaps Republican women candidates can remind voters in their midterm campaigns over the next couple of months of this deep-seated misogyny in the Democratic Party, especially when their Democratic opponents start launching attack ads in a couple of weeks. (It certainly explains the “holy frijolx” attack on Latina Republican Mayra Flores, for instance.)

But really … come on, (wo)man. Not to be a Captain Buzzkill (or a Debbie Downer?) about this, but this doesn’t exactly explain much about Maloney’s loss. It’s not the first time Maloney has run against men, even in Democratic primaries. The last three election cycles, Maloney has run against male Democrats in primaries and managed to win despite the supposed “sexist systems and misogyny” Maloney blames now. The last two cycles, Maloney held off Suraj Patel, who came pretty close to pushing her out in the 2020 Democratic primary, falling 3700 votes short. Maloney still won, however.

More to the point, though, Maloney’s hardly a victim of electoral politics. She has been a barnacle in Congress for thirty years. She first won her seat in the 1992 election, before the Internet had gone commercial. Nadler’s slightly worse on that score, by the way, having first come to Congress in 1992 as a special-election winner for the late Ted Weiss. But still, Maloney’s insistence that she is owed that seat as a woman is nothing but a symptom of a massive entitlement complex that may be even worse than we see in most other Beltway barnacles. Maybe even worse than Nadler himself, although that’s a toss-up at this point.

The decision to go head-to-head with each other belongs to Maloney and Nadler alone, not some “sexist system.” If Maloney wanted to stay in Congress, she could have opted to run in a neighboring district to avoid this outcome — and for that matter, Nadler could have as well. Neither of them care about anything other than their own crusty entitlement, however, and one of them had to lose. Too bad both of them didn’t. If Democrats in this district had been wise, they would have thrown both of these entitled barnacles out of Congress and tried a fresh voice instead.

Meanwhile, though … let a thousand midterm ads be cut that feature Maloney’s explanation. It’ll come in handy next month. Trust me.