This election cycle, Democrats have been consumed by a noticeable desperation. Beating the incumbent President Trump, who is viewed by the Left as an "existential threat," is foremost in their minds.

A candidate field that once included more than 20 people eventually winnowed down to just a few remaining prospects. At one point, Sen. Elizabeth Warren was considered a front-runner. But her campaign has pretty much collapsed at this point.

Rational observers can see that Warren’s downward spiral is of her own making. Still, others view Warren's electoral failures, both before and after Super Tuesday, as proof of widespread sexism rather than any failing on her part.

If @ewarren were a man, she would be the next POTUS. Full stop. Her gender is her biggest obstacle. America has a long long long long long way to go. — Stephanie Wittels Wachs (@wittelstephanie) March 1, 2020

To repeat the obvious: there is no other explanation except for misogyny for what has happened to Senator Warren this year. Sadly, a proof of concept. Profoundly depressing. — Jason Stanley (@jasonintrator) March 4, 2020

There are few things so intellectually lazy as concluding that a female candidate's lack of victory is mostly due to gender. This ignores not only the success of Hillary Clinton in 2016 but everything else that makes up an individual candidate and their appeal — or lack thereof.

Reducing a female's lackluster political performance to misogyny is a weak defense against legitimate criticisms of their policy platform or rhetorical tone. Even then, it's unacceptable among modern liberals to describe a female candidate as unappealing or “unlikable” — even if, based on her personality, she is.

Politics is a sport that requires voters like you for not only what you represent, but for who you are as a person. It is here that there is still a hesitancy to describe women seeking office as unpleasant, even if they are. And this very definition could easily apply to Warren, whose penchant for distorting the truth, far-left and poorly-thought-out plans, and air of inevitability all combine to make her intolerable.

Conveniently ignored when claims of sexism are projected onto Democratic voters by their own is that the party as a whole claims "wokeness" and diversity on a regular basis. Yet, when faced with female options at the primary ballot box, Democrats themselves are overwhelmingly choosing male candidates to represent them.

It must be difficult to exist as a supposed model for equality while vote totals err on the side of old, white males. But that's a problem for the Left to work out on its own. Meanwhile, Republicans reject politicians such as Warren, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, and Sen. Kamala Harris because of their policies. GOP voters did the same in 2016 with Clinton.

Personality quirks aside, it is their ideas about governance, not sexism, that turns most voters away from these women and toward other candidates.

The reason why Warren’s campaign unraveled, and why other female candidates failed to pick up steam, can't be found in chromosomes. It is one thing to point out obvious sexism when it does exist. But not everything that involves a woman and her failure and a man and his success has to do with gender. Making sexism the default conclusion amid defeat is actually quite patronizing.

Being a female, a former front-runner, a lawyer, academic, and an established politician isn't enough to win the presidential nomination. In the end, it's about what you offer to the voting public as they weigh their chances in the general election. And for Warren, Democratic primary voters decided she didn’t offer much.

If women desire to play on the same political field as men, they should be treated as just another option. What they offer in terms of principles and plans can, and should, be rejected just as easily. This is the reality of equality.

Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog and a columnist at Arc Digital.