Here is an example of embedded sexism (not misogyny) from your article:

“Warren stumbled on the single-payer issue, and she began to slip.”

This is the way many mainstream media outlets depicted Warren’s modification of her healthcare policy. They could just as easily (and more accurately in my view) have phrased the first clause as “After Warren realized that financing her healthcare plan would take more time than she had initially allowed for, she revised the timetable for implementing the plan in order to ensure that it would succeed.”

The term “stumbled” is a circular distortion, along with “began to slip.” Warren began to slip (in support from progressive supporters) because she stumbled; the proof that she stumbled is that she began to slip.

Now she did begin to slip (in support from progressive supporters) after her revision of M4A, but it is post hoc propter hoc reasoning to assume without concrete evidence that the revision caused the slip. The slip might simply be explained as the result of the media’s portrayal of her revision as a retrenchment (and the comments by progressives online abetted this interpretation). Warren slipped in the ratings because the media oversimplified the issue and because Sanders supporters looked at this oversimplification as an opportunity to paint their leader’s “opponent” as a moderate sellout to the establishment.

How is the media’s portrayal of Warren’s revision as a defect, as a betrayal of her original principle, sexist? Because in a patriarchal hierarchy, barreling through without hesitation is considered masculine and powerful, while stopping to analyze a problem and change course is feminine and indecisive.

Sanders and Trump are paragons of leading the Charge of the Light Brigade into battle. I can’t think of one case where either man made a significant revision in one of his “plans.”

There are other examples of reductive logic in your claim that misogyny is a red panda.

• The fact that women are elected to local and state positions to the same extent as men ignores the reality that the POTUS is foremost a figurehead, and the figure that a patriarchal hierarchy promotes is that of the pater familias. That’s why we were able to elect a mixed-race man before electing a woman of any race.
• The 50–50 ratio of election successes is not proof of the lack of sexism in voting practice (or election coverage). Perhaps the ratio of well-qualified women to well-qualified men is higher than 50–50; in other words for a woman to get elected, she has to be much more qualified (however we define that term) than a man. I can point to several local races in which the more qualified (experienced, intelligent….) woman was defeated by an incompetent male oaf thanks to gerrymandering and party line voting by the male-dominated Republican Party.
• And how many races consist of a qualified woman running against a qualified man? Why don’t we have a 50–50 legislature (state and national) and a 50–50 Supreme Court? You mentioned a woman winning an election as sheriff. How many sheriffs are women?
• Your title “misogyny or red panda” is also reductive. Sexism (the view that one sex is superior to the other) is quite different from misogyny (the hatred of one sex). Misogyny clearly exists in politics (e.g. in the numerous Republican statements about rape), but sexism (the notion that a woman is unelectable because of gender) is endemic not just in politics but in the media and the popular imagination. And no, liking a particular woman candidate or elected official doesn’t mean that one’s views are free of sexism, any more than admiring Clarence Thomas means one is not a racist.
• Gender alone is no indication of one’s attitude toward gender equity. Alabama’s governor is a woman, but she’s working to overturn Roe v. Wade. Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Margaret Thatcher….

Gender bias may be subtle, but it’s provable, and it’s not a red panda illusion. The problem isn’t a red panda sighting but the confirmation of a bias because one refuses to examine all the evidence objectively.