[Craving even more FPM content? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more. Click here to sign up.]

Kamala Harris has lots of problems as a candidate for the highest office in the land, and her allies in the state media are painfully aware of her obvious shortcomings – one of which is her crucial inability to garner the support of male voters.

To be clear: no one, male or female, truly likes Kamala Harris, because as a politician she is unlikeable. She is not a leader. She’s not a person of principle. She’s not “the smartest person in the room,” as people used to say of Barack Obama. She has exactly zero gravitas. She’s not charismatic, competent, or even articulate. Without a teleprompter she is a deer in headlights; even with a teleprompter she cannot convincingly deliver her flights of scripted pomposity. She has never made a public appearance in which she presented herself as genuine or authentic. Even her high-profile supporters in Hollywood and the media gush over her only because they fear and hate Donald Trump with the heat of a thousand suns, as the expression goes, and Kamala is his current opponent; they would just as willingly throw their support behind a box of hammers if they thought it had a better chance of beating Trump.

But male voters in particular, both black and white, are put off by Cacklin’ Kamala, and the media talking heads can barely conceal their panic over this as the election looms nearer, especially because black men are fleeing the Democrat plantation to align with Trump, whom they see as a badass who has their economic interests at heart.

NBC News chief Washington propagandist Andrea Mitchell raised this issue Sunday on Meet the Press when she told her fellow panelists that Kamala is not polling well with male voters and needs to abandon her strategy of avoiding serious interviews.

A visibly concerned Mitchell sputtered, “They [Kamala’s campaign team] have to double down on doing more interviews and serious interviews because what I’m hearing from Democratic and Republican businesspeople and a lot of men. She has such a big problem with men. I think there’s an undercount of the Trump vote. I think there’s misogynation [sic] in all of this, black and white men, big problem.”

She added, correctly, “Also, in the business world, they don’t think she is serious. They don’t think she’s a heavyweight. A lot of this is gender, but she’s got to be more specific about her economic plans.”

Host Kristen Welker agreed: “To Andrea’s point, the gender divide is just so significant. You see the extent to which Harris is winning with women and that Trump is winning with men.”

Mitchell is half-right: as I noted above, no one in the business world or anywhere else thinks that Kamala is a heavyweight. Confronted by the most basic questions about her economic plan, to speak to Mitchell’s point, Kamala is incapable of giving an answer more specific than launching into her life story or blathering about “investing” in the American people’s “aspirations.” The same applies on any other topic on which she is questioned. Kamala is in way over her head in a presidential race, and it shows every time she opens her mouth.

But Mitchell is way off base when she blames “misogynation” for Kamala’s unpopularity with men. This is the feminist way, of course – to accuse patriarchal misogyny when a female candidate like Hillary Clinton loses an election – but it is a lie. Hillary, for example, lost to Trump in 2016 not because America is a sexist society but because it was obvious she is a power-hungry, evil kleptocrat who could not conceal her contempt for the little people she believes owe her their votes. Her vision for America was “The Future is Female” – how was that going to track with male voters? She won the female vote by 13 points but lost the males by 11 points, 41 percent to 52 percent.

By contrast, Trump successfully sold himself then and now as a bold political outsider who truly loves America and had/has a detailed plan to get it back on track as the world’s preeminent superpower in a world full of enemies who smell blood in the water after four devastating years of the Biden/Harris regime.

This is what men want in a POTUS: a capable, strong, charismatic leader with a winning vision and a clear plan to realize it. If the best choice for that position is a woman, they will vote for her. If, for example, the two candidates on the slate were Democrat Tim Walz and Republican Margaret Thatcher, Walz would lose in a blowout, even though the Left is trying (unsuccessfully) to sell him as an icon of 21^st century masculinity and a regular guy who coaches and goes hunting. Men can see that Walz is a beta male radical who is out of his depth on the world stage, whereas Thatcher, who did not pit the sexes against each other, honestly earned her nickname “the Iron Lady.”

It is a bigoted lie to claim that American men both black and white are sexist and unwilling to vote for a female President. They simply won’t vote for one just because it would be an historic first in America. That alone is not enough of a reason to put someone in the Oval Office as the Leader of the Free World. Men will vote for the right person for the right job, but that person is not Kamala Harris.

Follow Mark Tapson at Culture Warrior