Support NeoGAF

[Kaleinc]

Do you know how ridiculously out of touch this sounds? A bunch of black people voted for Trump, are you going to claim he wasn't racist because of that?

We'll discuss it when 'a bunch' becomes half of the population.

 

[The Shadow]

You're arguing a point no one is making. No one is explicitly saying, in this thread anyway, that the ROOT reason for her loss is her gender. It is A reason, and for that reason alone it deserves to be looked into and taken seriously, not dismissed as not important enough. There's enough analysis going on for the other aspects as is.

Sexism was a significant factor, if a man could have campaigned the same way as Hillary and won.

There is also good reason to think that a man would have been able to get just enough additional support, by virtue of being a man, to win this election.

That tells me that there is a believe that all things equal, if Hillary Clinton was a man, she would have won. IE, sexism was the deciding factor in her loss.

Don't tell me no one is trying to argue that point. People are literally saying exactly that.

Edit:

And I'm still waiting for someone to explain why they feel it was so significant as to cause her the election. Sexism exists. We all get that. Not sure why this is even being discussed. Just want to know why people feel that it was a significant factor. Give me reasons to believe it was significant over all the other factors that caused her loss.

 

[tbm24]

That tells me that there is a believe that all things equal, if Hillary Clinton was a man, she would have won. IE, sexism was the deciding factor in her loss.

Don't tell me no one is trying to argue that point. People are literally saying exactly that.

Edit:

And I'm still waiting for someone to explain why they feel it was so significant as to cause her the election. Sexism exists. We all get that. Not sure why this is even being discussed. Just want to know why people feel that it was a significant factor. Give me reasons to believe it was significant over all the other factors that caused her loss.

The reason this is brought up is simple, Hillary has been the target of sexism and mysoginy the entirety of her political career back to be a governors wife. It is impossible to separate what her public image has gone through and her gender. That negative public image has persisted her entire career into her run for the presidency both times. If one of the significant factors I see purported over and over is that she was a shit candidate by virtue of being Hillary Clinton and all her baggage, you cannot seperate sexism from her baggage.

 

[xevis]

Assuming everything else is equal? I don't believe that's true.

If Hillary went to Wisconsin, and Michigan, and Pennsylvania, I don't think we'd be having this discussion now. Hillary had this election in the bag, but her biggest mistake (and the DNC), was that she ACTED like she had it in the bag.

That's what doomed her. Fundamental mistakes. Not her gender.

There are lots of things that might have swung the election. Perhaps harder campaigning in the Rust Belt would have done the trick (though she seemed to hit that area pretty hard in October; I count more 13 personal appearances in places like Ohio, Iowa and Pennsylvania and dozens if you look the events scheduled by her campaign) but that's not what we're discussing here. The topic is whether her gender had an impact on the result and I think the discussion we've had so far in this thread shows the answer is a pretty resounding yes.

 

[SolidSnakex]

This post does a great job of summing up just how fucked up Hillary's campaign was

He is throwing shade at the Clinton campaign for relying on demographic calculations and not campaigning:

Clinton campaign schedule:
http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintoncal0816.html
August 18 - New York, NY
August 19 - Martha's Vineyard, MA
August 20 - Nantucket, MA, Martha's Vineyard, MA - 5 fundraisers
August 21 - Provincetown, MA, Osterville, MA - 2 fundraisers
August 22 - Beverly Hills, CA - 2 fundraisers
August 23 - Los Angeles, CA, Laguna Beach, CA, Piedmont, CA - 4 fundraisers
August 24 - Redwood City, CA, Los Altos, CA, Woodside, CA - 3 fundraisers
August 25 - Reno, NV - urban swing state campaign event
August 26 - None
August 27 - White Plains, NY
August 28 - Sag Harbor, NY, Southampton, NY, Bridgehampton, NY - 3 fundraisers
August 29 - East Hampton, NY, Quogue, NY - 2 fundraisers
August 30 - Sagaponack, NY, North Haven, NY - 2 fundraisers
August 31 - Cincinnati, OH - urban swing state campaign event

22 fundraising events, 2 visits to urban areas of swing states

This was Obama's schedule in the same period in 2008:
https://www2.gwu.edu/~action/2008/obamacal0808.html
August 18 - Albuquerque, NM
August 19 - Orlando, FL, Raleigh, NC
August 20 - Greensboro, NC, Martinsville, VA, Danville, VA, Lynchburg, VA
August 21 - Richmond, VA, Chester, VA, Petersburg, VA, Emporia, VA, Chesapeake, VA
August 22 - Chicago, IL
August 23 - Springfield, IL
August 24 - Eau Claire, WI
August 25 - Davenport, IA, Kansas City, MO
August 26 - Kansas City, MO
August 27 - Billings, MT, Denver, CO
August 28 - Denver, CO
August 29 - Monaca, PA, Aliquippa, PA, Beaver, PA
August 30 - Boardman, OH, Cleveland, OH, Marengo, OH, Dublin, OH
August 31 - Lima, OH, Toledo, OH, Hamilton, IN, Battle Creek, MI

0 fundraisers, multiple visits to urban and rural swing state areas.

The September calendars:
Obama - 5 fundraisers, visits to Detroit, MI, Monroe, MI, Milwaukee, WI, New Philadelphia, OH, Dillonvale, OH, York, PA, Columbia, PA, Lancaster, PA, Duryea, PA, Wyoming, PA, Terre Haute, IN, Flint, MI, Farmington Hills, MI, Riverside, OH, Green Bay, WI, Detroit, MI.

Clinton - 14 fundraisers, 1 visit to Philadelphia, 1 visit to Cleveland -- that's it for the Rust Belt in September!

Spending a ridiculous amount of time raising money with rich business people and celebrities instead of actually talking to voters. And then when she actually does campaign she barely spends any time in the rustbelt.

That post was made in response to Obama mentioning during his press conference today that he won counties that he may have lost had he not campaigned. He also brought up that he lost some counties that he campaigned in, but he lost those by 20% instead of something like 50%.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

She was a shit candidate because she wasn't able to beat someone like Trump, despite having the backing of the complete DNC, including Obama and direct experience from 2008. She made a lot of mistakes that were so very avoidable and were the result of overconfidence and arrogance. Like throwing fundraisers instead of going out, ignoring the rural areas completely, flying home every night with a jet, having significantly less events than Donald Trump and such.

You can say what you want about Trump, but he worked like a horse for the hearts of the Rust Belt and it payed of. Bigly.

Comments like these say a lot

People are more willing to defend the thought process that goes all in for a barely competent bigot full of empty promises than the actually competent candidate with real policy, because they couldn't get their golden unicorn out of the primaries.

Since last week the prevailing sentiment among those least likely to be hurt by the social policy side of a Trump victory is that the Dems should drop overt social policy to make rural whites feel better about themselves. If that's the way you want to go fine, but people better be 100% honest about it.

 

[The Shadow]

The reason this is brought up is simple, Hillary has been the target of sexism and mysoginy the entirety of her political career back to be a governors wife. It is impossible to separate what her public image has gone through and her gender. That negative public image has persisted her entire career into her run for the presidency both times. If one of the significant factors I see purported over and over is that she was a shit candidate by virtue of being Hillary Clinton and all her baggage, you cannot seperate sexism from her baggage.

You can't separate it from her baggage. So basically you can't tell me why you believe gender discrimination had a big impact, only that you believe it to be true.

The topic is whether her gender had an impact on the result and I think the discussion we've had so far in this thread shows the answer is a pretty resounding yes.

Where does it show this? I'm seeing a pretty divided discussion here. If nothing else, it just proves that people see what they want to see.

Moreover, this thread, this discussion, isn't evidence that gender discrimination was a major factor in her loss. All this shows is people's belief that it had a significant impact, but I'm still waiting for some solid evidence from the campaign that shows this to be true.

Comments like these say a lot

People are more willing to defend the thought process that goes all in for a barely competent bigot full of empty promises than the actually competent candidate with real policy, because they couldn't get their golden unicorn out of the primaries.

Since last week the prevailing sentiment among those least likely to be hurt by the social policy side of a Trump victory is that the Dems should drop overt social policy to make rural whites feel better about themselves. If that's the way you want to go fine, but people better be 100% honest about it.

Still stuck on Bernie? Yeessh...

I'll be brutally honest. This hostile condescending attitude is incredibly dismissive of the voters that previously voted blue but last week voted for Trump. Some of them are racist and sexist, some of them had legit reasons. Either way, that attitude is exactly why Clinton lost, and exactly why those voters didn't vote for her and voted red. You simply can't dismiss half the nation and still expect to win. No one deserves to be president. You have to earn those votes.

 

[tbm24]

You can't separate it from her baggage. So basically you can't tell me why you believe gender discrimination had a big impact, only that you believe it.

Does the continual hit job on her public image and the hate campaign she's endured for all these years not count somehow?

 

[The Shadow]

Does the continual hit job on her public image and the hate campaign she's endured for all these years not count somehow?

Hit job...by republicans? Honestly, tell me how the hit job on her has been any different on previous dem candidates? Or better yet, the hit job repubs have against fellow repubs during primaries?

"Swift boating"? Birthers? Secret muslim? This goes on and on and on. Heck, some of it is probably left over from the vitriol they had for Bill, whom they tried to impeach.

They've all had pretty unfair press and smear campaigns leveled at them.

 

[xevis]

And I'm still waiting for someone to explain why they feel it was so significant as to cause her the election. Sexism exists. We all get that. Not sure why this is even being discussed. Just want to know why people feel that it was a significant factor. Give me reasons to believe it was significant over all the other factors that caused her loss.

I don't believe anyone can say ABC > XYZ when it comes to analysing the result. All one can do is discuss the contributing factors. One factor is that Clinton was crucified by voters for a range of issues (supposed corruption, hypocrisy, elitism etc) while Trump got a free pass. Another factor is that Clinton was attacked in very specific, very personal, very gendered ways.

The parallels to Australia's recent political experiences are quite striking. Here's Tony Abbott, Australia's future PM, at a far-right rally talking shit about our first female PM, Julia Gillard:

Here's an Australian highlight reel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsECK-gRCGc
How many similarities can you spot?

 

[The Shadow]

I don't believe anyone can say ABC > XYZ when it comes to analysing the result. All one can do is discuss the contributing factors. One factor is that Clinton was crucified for a range of issues (supposed corruption, hypocrisy, elitism etc) while Trump got a free pass.

People in political threads keep saying this and this is simply not what I saw. Trump and his surrogates were raked through the coals every time he said something stupid. The few times it didn't happen, like the town hall with Matt Lauer or his appearance on The Tonight Show, people spoke up about it, angry that they were normalizing hate and didn't press him hard enough on the issues.

Trump was the butt of everyone's joke and the few times he was taken seriously, people got pissed. Don't tell me Hillary got crucified and Trump got a free pass. That's not what happened.

Another factor is that Clinton was attacked in very specific, very personal, very gendered ways.

Pictures taken t Trump rallies, I presume, where his strongest supporters believe Obama was born in Kenya, and he's a secret muslim, and the confederate flag wouldn't be out of place, correct? They were never going to vote for Clintion, vagina or not.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

You can't separate it from her baggage. So basically you can't tell me why you believe gender discrimination had a big impact, only that you believe it to be true.



Where does it show this? I'm seeing a pretty divided discussion here. If nothing else, it just proves that people see what they want to see.

Moreover, this thread, this discussion, isn't evidence that gender discrimination was a major factor in her loss. All this shows is people's belief that it had a significant impact, but I'm still waiting for some solid evidence from the campaign that shows this to be true.



Still stuck on Bernie? Yeessh...

I'll be brutally honest. This hostile condescending attitude is incredibly dismissive of the voters that previously voted blue but last week voted for Trump. Some of them are racist and sexist, some of them had legit reasons. Either way, that attitude is exactly why Clinton lost, and exactly why those voters didn't vote for her and voted red. You simply can't dismiss half the nation and still expect to win. No one deserves to be president. You have to earn those votes.

The poster I was responding to is the one still stuck on Bernie. I actually liked Sanders but once he was out of the race it stopped mattering.

Clinton lost because enough people voted for Trump, not because everyone else didn't cup their balls while they chose poorly.

People wouldn't care about the "dismissal" if Clinton won because everyone still understands that Trump was not an intelligent choice and most of those wagging their fingers now are still calling them uneducated and desperate, just not bigoted. I personally believe that not every Trump voter is a bigot but they are, by fact of having voted for him, unconcerned about bigotry in light of personal financial concerns. In this respect they're probably not much different from most non-minority libs which is why they feel the need to defend Trump voters now.

There are well-off, degree holding people who voted for Trump, just as there are Rust Belters who didn't, such as my family. Snotty "I told you so" from those least likely to be affected by the incoming idiot don't mean much to me.

 

[Valhelm]

If only women could vote and make claims of the op groundless.
oh wait.

That argument fails when you realize how openly misogynistic so many women are.

 

[Audioboxer]

This post does a great job of summing up just how fucked up Hillary's campaign was



Spending a ridiculous amount of time raising money with rich business people and celebrities instead of actually talking to voters. And then when she actually does campaign she barely spends any time in the rustbelt.

That post was made in response to Obama mentioning during his press conference today that he won counties that he may have lost had he not campaigned. He also brought up that he lost some counties that he campaigned in, but he lost those by 20% instead of something like 50%.

Yeesh, Clinton's doing what Clinton's do best. Raising money. Its a shame money raised and money spent isn't how the election is won.

 

[xevis]

Pictures taken t Trump rallies, I presume, where his strongest supporters believe Obama was born in Kenya, and he's a secret muslim, and the confederate flag wouldn't be out of place, correct? They were never going to vote for Clintion, vagina or not.

She's been dealing with this shit for years:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_7GrRw6S64

 

[The Shadow]

She's been dealing with this shit for years:

Again, I've given you examples of Obama having to deal with racism, for years. There were literal white supremacist rallies in 2008 and 2012. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

I'm not saying it's ok. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. But fuck me, this shit happens to everyone in the crosshairs.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/15/631035/-

 

[xevis]

Again, I've given you examples of Obama having to deal with racism, for years. There were literal white supremacist rallies in 2008 and 2012. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯[/url]

Can we please not try to draw an equivalence between being black and being a woman? I don't want to play oppression olympics. The fact remains that Clinton's gender was used by her political opponent against her. You can see evidence for that in the gendered language Trump uses to describe her ("that woman", "such a nasty woman" etc) and in the often sexualised and quite personal nature of the attacks when he goes after her. You've also seen evidence of his sexist message reflected in the media and in propaganda produced by his supporters at his rallies.

What more do you need to be convinced that sexism was a contributing factor in the election result?

 

[The Shadow]

Can we please not try to draw an equivalence between being black and being a woman? I don't want to play oppression olympics.

Why is one more important than the other to you? Just curious.

The fact remains that Clinton's gender was used by her political opponent against her. You can see evidence for that in the gendered language Trump uses to describe her ("that woman", "such a nasty woman" etc) and in the often sexualised nature of the attacks when he goes after her. You've also seen evidence of his sexist message reflected in the media and in propaganda produced by his supporters at his rallies.

What more do you need to be convinced that sexism was a contributing factor in the election result?

Because all the evidence I've seen as far as the media goes, was that Trump was lambasted for his sexist, misogynistic statements. The recording in the Access Hollywood van was used to his detriment and Hillary's benefit, not the opposite.

Yes, people attacked her for sexist and misogynistic reasons, but the media reported on it negatively.

 

[xevis]

Why is one more important than the other to you? Just curious.

I'm not ranking one over the other. I'm telling you they're incomparable. Please don't try derail the present discussion with this stuff.

Because all the evidence I've seen as far as the media goes, was that Trump was lambasted for his sexist, misogynistic statements. The recording in the Access Hollywood van was used to his detriment and Hillary's benefit, not the opposite.

Yes, people attacked her for sexist and misogynistic reasons, but the media reported on it negatively.

The Access Hollywood tape didn't stick. Why not? Why didn't his many failed business stick? Why didn't his abuse of the tax system stick? Why are his wealth, elitist lifestyle and power-seeking seen as a positive traits but her power seeking, wealth and elitist lifestyle seen as a negative? Why are his sexual antics and hypocrisy not an issue but Bill's improprieties are? Why was his wife, a one time illegal immigrant, not a liability? Why didn't anyone call him out on his fat ass?

 

[Ekai]

As a supporter of Bernie during the primaries, I find it very weird to claim sexism wasn't involved in how Hillary was perceived by some in the GE. Especially if you look at some of the attacks against her. There is a definite double-standard there. Especially since the most qualified woman lost to the most incompetent man, despite winning the popular vote by well over a million at this point. Are there faults to be had? Yes and I criticized those quite a bit. But she seemed open to embracing the left at least a lil bit.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

Let me bold this for you:

I supported Bernie in the primaries and would have personally preferred him be the candidate. I voted for Clinton because she was the candidate.

I am not using ANYTHING as a shield. I am just disgusted that supposed progressives are unable to fathom that sexism played a large part in her ENTIRE FUCKING CAREER. I believe, personally, that progressives are using her as scapegoat to make themselves feel better about the loss. 'Oh she was a terrible candidate, that's why she lost, no other reason!' When people can't even acknowledge that it played a role that the first serious woman president was defeated by an openly misogynist man with no experience, I just want to tear my hair out. We haven't come as far as I thought.

I'm answering your question, more than criticizing you. I apologize if I came off that way.

Is there a lot of sexism in the United States? Absolutely. Did Clinton have to suffer through it all her career and her life? Absolutely.

But you were there during the primary. Clinton supporters all across the media, wrote off all Bernie supporters as sexist.

They're doing it again right now to try and hold onto the reins of the party. That's why there's a ton of push back.

Obviously the media treated Trump and Hillary unfairly. That Trump was ever even considered a serious contender is a grave failure of the media. But Clinton's campaign ran a "Pied Piper" strategy with their media allies to get them to take Trump serious in the primary. She helped contribute to the problem herself. Also, if Clinton was up against female Trump (Omarosa for example) or a Palin style candidate, I'm not sure the media would have acted all that differently so long as the Republican contenders got them ratings the way Trump did.

There's also a neutrality bias and this applies across all candidates in all races across all races and genders. Policy doesn't matter. Facts don't mater. "Republican said this. Democrat said that. I don't know who is right." They will hold it well past the point of sanity, as we've seen in this election.

 

[adamsappel]

Hillary didn't lose the campaign because of her gender. She lost the campaign because she campaigned poorly and couldn't shake a ton of the baggage she had over her political career.

A hell of a lot of that baggage is purely from sexism.

 

[Media]

I'm answering your question, more than criticizing you. I apologize if I came off that way.

Is there a lot of sexism in the United States? Absolutely. Did Clinton have to suffer through it all her career and her life? Absolutely.

But you were there during the primary. Clinton supporters all across the media, wrote off all Bernie supporters as sexist.

They're doing it again right now to try and hold onto the reins of the party. That's why there's a ton of push back.

Obviously the media treated Trump and Hillary unfairly. That Trump was ever even considered a serious contender is a grave failure of the media. But Clinton's campaign ran a "Pied Piper" strategy with their media allies to get them to take Trump serious in the primary. She helped contribute to the problem herself. Also, if Clinton was up against female Trump (Omarosa for example) or a Palin style candidate, I'm not sure the media would have acted all that differently so long as the Republican contenders got them ratings the way Trump did.

There's also a neutrality bias and this applies across all candidates in all races across all races and genders. Policy doesn't matter. Facts don't mater. "Republican said this. Democrat said that. I don't know who is right." They will hold it well past the point of sanity, as we've seen in this election.

Yes, I was there and annoyed, but never once saw someone claim Bernie supporters were sexist. Racist, yes, a shit ton of that, but not sexist. Now, the script has been flipped, and apparently if we want to talk about how sexism effected the campaign we're racist because black men have it harder?

I'm just baffled. As someone pointed out up thread, sexism was rampant during the campaign. People who voted for Trump forgave the stuff of him that they vilified HilLary for. We had people on our very progressive board arguing that the bus comments were not bragging about sexual assault, commenting on her clothing ando her smile and pounding over and over as a reason she lost that she was 'unlikeable'.

Again, an experience woman whose had to contend with sexism her entire career lost to anot openly, proudly, misogynistic man with no experience, and sexism played no large part?

 

[Rentahamster]

I understood that most everything he was promising wasn't well thought out and largely promises that he would never be able to keep;

Does that mean you think single payer health care, free college, and a $15/hour minimum wage are impossibilities? Aren't those things you would have wanted to see Clinton try to do? Weren't some people hoping she'd be able to transition Obamacare into a single payer structure?

If a white male ran an identical campaign, that person would be president-elect. And by a good margin.

Doubtful. This was a change election and she wasn't a change candidate. A woman running on Bernie's platform, Elizabeth Warren for example, would have had a decent shot at it. A white male under investigation by the FBI, mired with the perception of corruption, who is perceived as unlikable, and doesn't campaign properly in the rust belt states would still lose to Trump. (Most) people didn't vote against a woman. They voted against Hillary Clinton.

Try this article for some opinions by a woman.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-women-214454

Why Women Rejected Hillary
It’s long past time to stop pretending there’s a “women’s vote.” Trump proved that we don’t come together as a bloc anymore.

Women didn’t just vote for Trump. They voted against Hillary Clinton. And for many, they weren’t voting against her as a woman. They were voting against her as an establishment figure, and her sex didn’t matter all that much. Try as she might to distance herself—and, in truth, she didn’t try all that hard—HRC could never be anything but a consummate Washington insider at a time when many, many voters, women as well as men, wanted change.

Lesson One: There is No Women’s Vote

Yes, women make up half this country. Yes, we share certain life experiences unique to our gender. And yes, we spend a lot of time talking and writing about those experiences. But we don’t vote as a bloc. Never have. Doubt we ever will.

Lesson Two: Power and Strength Look Different to Different People

Hillary’s indefatigable performance during the Benghazi hearings looked like power and strength to some. Trump’s outsize silhouette as he was introduced as the presidential nominee at the GOP convention looked like strength to others. People are susceptible to the aura that emanates from wealthy men—and that’s particularly true of women.

Lesson Three: There Are No Concerns That Affect All Women

This is a corollary of Lesson One. The Pantsuit Nation is not a movement but an archipelago of women in or on the fringes of wealthy communities up and down the East and West coasts. It doesn’t represent all women. Not even close.

Lesson Four: The Federal Government Should Have Stayed Out of the Bathroom

Women tend to be big preservers and enforcers of the cultural status quo. When feminism entered into an accord with social justice warriors who complain about “cis-women” (in other words, women whose gender identity matches the sex on their birth certificate—the opposite of transgender women), remade sisterhood into siblinghood and campaigned for transgender bathrooms, it activated a not-too-far-below-the-surface longing for authoritarianism in many middle-of-the-road women.

(This one is tricky because it's mostly Republicans' fault that this was brought into the spotlight in the first place. However, there is a particular conflict that has emerged between trans activists and old school feminists. I have no idea if it really made that much of a difference, though.)

Lesson Five: Please Stop Talking and Listen, Lefty Feminists

When Trump talked about his rejection of political correctness, it may have been a coded call for racism for some. But for a lot of the former Barack Obama, now Trump, supporters, it was a reaction against what they see as the tyranny of the left. It was a rejection of the kind of discourse, first found on campuses and enforced by the Title IX compliance squads and increasingly accepted into progressive society at large, where political engagement takes the form of policing the language and expressions of others. This is a tricky point to raise right now, when social media is filled with the worst kind of hate, but in spaces that purport to have room for civil discourse—starting with college classrooms—one side cannot express its point of view and then claim that the other side is victimizing it by merely expressing its side.

 

[xevis]

Try this article for some opinions by a woman.

She lost me when she invoked "social justice warriors", "lefty feminists" and described trans people as just having different "preferences".

Fuck. That. Noise.

 

[Ekai]

That that writer belittles my existence as a transwoman already makes me dislike them.
That they don't understand the argument between Terfs (who don't even view transwomen as women) and transwomen also shows a clear lack of understanding the subject matter they are even trying to address. I can't take that writer seriously. At all. On just so many grounds.

She lost me when she invoked "social justice warriors", "lefty feminists" and described trans people as just having different "preferences".

Fuck. That. Noise.

This too.

 

[Twilight Gap]

By the time Trump takes Obamas place the number of excuses for why Clinton lost will eclipse the amount of emails she deleted.

She won the popular vote. More of the country voted for her than they voted for Trump. Clearly more Americans wanted her than him.

But she lost because she ran a shit Campaign and started to relax thinking that Trump would self destruct. It's like putting your car in reverse and sticking your head out the window to wave to the crowd because you saw the other guy blow a tire. The race ain't over till you cross the line.

 

[mjp2417]

Does that mean you think single payer health care, free college, and a $15/hour minimum wage are impossibilities? Aren't those things you would have wanted to see Clinton try to do? Weren't some people hoping she'd be able to transition Obamacare into a single payer structure?



Doubtful. This was a change election and she wasn't a change candidate. A woman running on Bernie's platform, Elizabeth Warren for example, would have had a decent shot at it. A white male under investigation by the FBI, mired with the perception of corruption, who is perceived as unlikable, and doesn't campaign properly in the rust belt states would still lose to Trump. (Most) people didn't vote against a woman. They voted against Hillary Clinton.

Try this article for some opinions by a woman.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-women-214454

Why Women Rejected Hillary
It’s long past time to stop pretending there’s a “women’s vote.” Trump proved that we don’t come together as a bloc anymore.










(This one is tricky because it's mostly Republicans' fault that this was brought into the spotlight in the first place. However, there is a particular conflict that has emerged between trans activists and old school feminists. I have no idea if it really made that much of a difference, though.)

This article is a dumpster fire. Like, Lesson Four is basically a melange of politically correct euphemism ("middle-of-the-road" actually means transphobic if we're not worried about being PC) and goofy quasi-sociological babble ("Women tend to be big preservers and enforcers of the cultural status quo"). Her ultimate argument is that women naturally seek out authoritarian men when confronted with trans folk because biology. This is, to be blunt, insane.

We are, unfortunately, going to be subjected to countless articles in the coming weeks and months from hardscrabble writers conveniently ventriloquizing the deep thoughts and anxieties of the common man and woman from their perches at salt-of-the-earth, non-elite publications like Politico. We should hope, for our sanity's sake and for the sake of our country, that these "think pieces" stop being so abjectly fucking stupid and morally repugnant.

 

[Dice//]

Try this article for some opinions by a woman.

There are indeed many of us "woman" that do things.

Also, I don't agree with the article on a few levels, some already mentioned, but also I'm surprised the author thinks politicizing "women" ISN'T a thing when it totally matters on that level since women have often been and still are hardly equal in politics. The article talks down to more left-leaning ideas and shuts down progressive ideals as alienating somehow.

 

[Media]

It's pretty telling that someone would share an article like that with the caption of 'try this article for some opinons by a woman' while this thread continues to completely dismiss the opinons of women actually posting in it.

 

[shinra-bansho]

This post does a great job of summing up just how fucked up Hillary's campaign was

August to August campaign comparison is pointless. The schedules were different for the primaries, conventions and debates. (On the last I'm less sure.)

Also she was busy dying of pneumonia in September.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

It's pretty telling that someone would share an article like that with the caption of 'try this article for some opinons by a woman' while this thread continues to completely dismiss the opinons of women actually posting in it.

"Try this article from the one woman I found that agrees with my pre-conceived notions, unlike you annoying wenches who keep arguing with me", more like...

 

[Rentahamster]

She lost me when she invoked "social justice warriors", "lefty feminists" and described trans people as just having different "preferences".

Fuck. That. Noise.

That that writer belittles my existence as a transwoman already makes me dislike them.
That they don't understand the argument between Terfs (who don't even view transwomen as women) and transwomen also shows a clear lack of understanding the subject matter they are even trying to address. I can't take that writer seriously. At all. On just so many grounds.

This article is a dumpster fire. Like, Lesson Four is basically a melange of politically correct euphemism ("middle-of-the-road" actually means transphobic if we're not worried about being PC) and goofy quasi-sociological babble ("Women tend to be big preservers and enforcers of the cultural status quo"). Her ultimate argument is that women naturally seek out authoritarian men when confronted with trans folk because biology. This is, to be blunt, insane.

There are indeed many of us "woman" that do things.

Also, I don't agree with the article on a few levels, some already mentioned, but also I'm surprised the author thinks politicizing "women" ISN'T a thing when it totally matters on that level since women have often been and still are hardly equal in politics. The article talks down to more left-leaning ideas and shuts down progressive ideals as alienating somehow.

Don't mistake observations about what went wrong in the messaging to be the same as an acceptance of the opinions of that portion of the electorate whom you disagree with. Is the author wrong in her observation that there are a lot of women voters who feel the way that they did? Don't just read the parts that I quoted. Read the subsequent analysis for context of how HRC's messaging did not resonate with enough women, in this author's opinion. Note that if you think the answer is to be less progressive about things, then you're still taking away the wrong lessons.

It's pretty telling that someone would share an article like that with the caption of 'try this article for some opinons by a woman' while this thread continues to completely dismiss the opinons of women actually posting in it.

By "this thread", do you mean me too? In what way is it "telling" for me to try to share insight that might not otherwise be shared?

"Try this article from the one woman I found that agrees with my pre-conceived notions, unlike you annoying wenches who keep arguing with me", more like...

Mischaracterizing my post and then arguing against that strawman is not the best way to show that I have pre-conceived notions. Perhaps some introspection is in order.

 

[ultratruman]

After ignoring the hollowing out of the Democratic party at the state and legislative level, I had hoped that electing a national socialist would've moved people beyond 'We Need To Get (x demographic) President'.

Republicans are the enemy.

Trump is going to beat the shit out of the most vulnerable people in US society and has made the world a terrifying place to live in.

Democratic Party members, please prioritise removing these people from power over adherence to some Marxist arc of history bullshit. If the best candidate to stop Trump in 2020 is a straight white male, let it be a straight white male.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Comments like these say a lot

People are more willing to defend the thought process that goes all in for a barely competent bigot full of empty promises than the actually competent candidate with real policy, because they couldn't get their golden unicorn out of the primaries.

Since last week the prevailing sentiment among those least likely to be hurt by the social policy side of a Trump victory is that the Dems should drop overt social policy to make rural whites feel better about themselves. If that's the way you want to go fine, but people better be 100% honest about it.

Nice condescending attitude , completely ignoring actual points.

Hillary got more vote than Kerry or Gore, but like Kerry and Gore she had no charisma to sway enough people to vote her, and more importantly, she didn't campaign in those swing states of the rust belt which costed her the election. Focus on those actual tangible things and maybe next time you won't elect a racist douchebag as a president, someone who got less votes than Romney, a dude who lost against a black president coming from a recession.

 

[G.ZZZ]

After ignoring the hollowing out of the Democratic party at the state and legislative level, I had hoped that electing a national socialist would've moved people beyond 'We Need To Get (x demographic) President'.

Republicans are the enemy.

Trump is going to beat the shit out of the most vulnerable people in US society and has made the world a terrifying place to live in.

Democratic Party members, please prioritise removing these people from power over adherence to some Marxist arc of history bullshit. If the best candidate to stop Trump in 2020 is a straight white male, let it be a straight white male.

Well said. Pragmatism over idealism. Funnily, this was Hillary's percieved greatest asset in the primary, we knew how it ended.

 

[Rentahamster]

If the best candidate to stop Trump in 2020 is a straight white male, let it be a straight white male.

No.

The best candidate to beat Trump is one who can match his appeals to emotion tit for tat, and sound more authentic than he can on whatever issues are the most relevant 4 years from now. This candidate can be anyone, not just a straight white male.

Becoming more Republican is not the solution. This is not the lesson of 2016.

 

[Makai]

No.

The best candidate to beat Trump is one who can match his appeals to emotion tit for tat, and sound more authentic than he can on whatever issues are the most relevant 4 years from now. This candidate can be anyone, not just a straight white male.

Becoming more Republican is not the solution. This is not the lesson of 2016.

The lesson from the entire 2015-2016 election is that people really like outsiders and nonpoliticians. Tom Hanks/Will Smith 2020.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

The lesson of 2016 is that policy and details doesn't matter as Long as you have the memes and entertainment valve. Worry about the actual job later.

That's why The Rock would win 2020.

 

[Rentahamster]

The lesson from the entire 2015-2016 election is that people really like outsiders and nonpoliticians. Tom Hanks/Will Smith 2020.

That's not necessarily the case, and it may not even be relevant 4 years from now. Tom Hanks would have the necessary charisma though. It's hard to say if that would translate into the political sphere 100%.

 

[IbukiLordSA]

Don't think it has anything to do with being a woman, more to do with regards to the people they choose as a candidate. I'd have voted for amoeba over Hilary.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

The parallels to Australia's recent political experiences are quite striking. Here's Tony Abbott, Australia's future PM, at a far-right rally talking shit about our first female PM, Julia Gillard:



Here's an Australian highlight reel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsECK-gRCGc
How many similarities can you spot?

Damn, this shit is absurd.

 

[ultratruman]

No.

The best candidate to beat Trump is one who can match his appeals to emotion tit for tat, and sound more authentic than he can on whatever issues are the most relevant 4 years from now. This candidate can be anyone, not just a straight white male.

Becoming more Republican is not the solution. This is not the lesson of 2016.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply a straight white male would naturally be the right choice. I just think the DNC and the next primary shouldn't dominate the discussion with pretty rhetoric about which demographics 'time' it is to run. Left-wing identity politics and 'progressive' ethno-nationalism needs to be seen for the electoral cyanide it is.

The best person to beat Trump could be Tammy Duckworth, it could be Jason Kander. As long as there is a unbiased field of serious candidates, the Democratic primary process enfranchises enough people that the right nominee will emerge.

 

[Media]

By "this thread", do you mean me too? In what way is it "telling" for me to try to share insight that might not otherwise be shared?

By this thread is mean this thread, which has a trend of dismissing and sometimes insulting the women posters who think sexism was a factor. By 'telling' I mean what I said, as Morrigan posted, finding an article that agrees with you personally and framing as a women's view, is telling.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

We'll discuss it when 'a bunch' becomes half of the population.

If only women could vote, Hillary would be president.

 

[Rentahamster]

By this thread is mean this thread, which has a trend of dismissing and sometimes insulting the women posters who think sexism was a factor. By 'telling' I mean what I said, as Morrigan posted, finding an article that agrees with you personally and framing as a women's view, is telling.

Well, I'm in this thread, and I've only ever just responded with questions. No intention to dismiss.

First of all, I don't agree with everything in the article. There are particular points of view that I cannot experience first hand, so having articles written about them are important.


Second of all, it literally is a woman's point of view.

 

[Platy]

This thread is just ... wow.

The whole "need to smile more" and then "she is smilling too much" and how SHE is the one not trustworthy when the alternative is Trump all tell you everything you need to know about the sexism in this campaign

Alternativaly :

FemTrump would be MASSACRED by MaleHillary so much that it is not even funny.

Second of all, it literally is a woman's point of view.

One against a good part of girlgaf telling you otherwise =P

But I have to say the text gave me a good laugh ... specialy "left feminist" because it gave me some laught trying to imagine a "right feminist" ... till I remember that people like Christina Hoff Sommers would fit that bill =|