Support NeoGAF

[dramatis]

Do you actually believe this? Yes it SHOULD be enough. George W Bush was also a fucktard, and we elected him as well. And Reagan before that. What makes you think the electorate votes with the same mindset that you and I do? They don't. And we've already elected a couple of hucksters like Hoover.

When you saw the DNC you probably saw Rainbows and Unicorns; I saw a group of people so out of touch with large swaths of this country. I didn't think it'd be enough to overcome the Cheetoh Monster's gaffes....but then again.

EVERY democratic candidate should keep this election in mind not for racism or sexism.

Bush Jr. and Reagan both had gubernatorial experience before becoming president. Hoover was Secretary of Commerce. Yes, Trump is the least qualified candidate in history.

just keep on trucking. You're fundamentally misunderstanding the electorate and instead pinning it all on sexism, as if most of these people really give a shit if she ran a better campaign.

It is sort of presumptuous of you to claim you understand the electorate either, isn't it? Or is it that you're so confident in your answer that you don't question any additional influences? How are you so certain that your answers are the right ones?

 

[digdug2k]

Parliamentary systems are easier for women to get elected in than the system the US uses. IIRC under a parliamentary system, the voters vote for the party, and the party nominates a leader.

I get the feeling that's what the EC was supposed to be all the time, but we'd be fucked even worse if it was. So.... yippee?

I think there's a lot of people in denial about sexism out there. Like, I get it. You have women for friends. That's great. But Hillary is basically Obama without a penis. That's why the right "hated" her. Even the shit from his admin that tries to get blamed on her, he made the call. They shift the blame to her to try to keep their image of him unvarnished.

Taking that SoS position probably didn't help her in the end. Just made her a scapegoat for the left, which in turn, made them less excited about her when her turn to run came.

 

[ricardo_sousa11]

She didn't lose because she was a women. She ran a horrible "not trump" campaign who outright ignored a variety of states that she thought she would auto win.

Blame is on her and her team, not her vagina.

This.

 

[Boney]

This is an exciting new perspective: Women who want to acknowledge the existence of sexism are doing a disservice to other women and "diminishing others who have made history."

You can add this to the suggestion that women who attempt to acknowledge sexism are somehow racist.

This is very common in academic circles describing bad feminism as ways it uses strawman to circumvent discussions. This isn't any way close to "victim blaming". Frankly you are being quite ridiculous with your position.

It is true that we cannot dissociate her scandals and personality, as well as the percieved qualifications from her gender. But those scandals and personality faults are very real. She is untrustworthy because she has always been a politician that swims down river, being carried by popular positions instead of swimming up river in favor of her ideals. This carries to Enviromental issues, economic regulation issues, incarceration policies, really most everything.

There is an uphill battle to climb for women, but putting a deep seeded cultural role women should have over campaign failings and her comparatively low acceptance compared to other women politician is a disservice to feminism.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Sexism is a huge reason why she lost.

Clinton is lambasted for trying to earn money through her speeches. She's viewed as corrupt and evil for earning so much money and associating with these kind of people. Donald Trump, who stiffed his workers and contractors, didn't pay taxes, had many Chapter 11 bankruptcies, is viewed as smart and intelligent for using whatever rules in the book to get ahead. We like seeing successful men but are extremely suspicious of successful women.

And let's not forget the 2005 video of "grab her by the pussy" infame. HOW many people tripped over their fat ass to make excuses for that disgusting behaviour. It's "locker room talk", "that's just the way men talk", "boys will be boys". We make excuses because men are presumed to be unable to control their penis, they're automatically attracted to beautiful.

There's millions of other examples. Pretty much every scandal had a huge sexism aspect. And it was enough to flip the 10,000 votes or so needed to flip an election in the crucial swing states.

I'm surprised a progressive forum like GAF thinks sexism had no effect. I'm guessing a lot are just out for blood.

 

[The Shadow]

This is an exciting new perspective: Women who want to acknowledge the existence of sexism are doing a disservice to other women and "diminishing others who have made history."

You can add this to the suggestion that women who attempt to acknowledge sexism are somehow racist.

The perspective is this. Women have an uphill battle to become leaders and competent ones are able to achieve it DESPITE that uphill battle. Despite what all the other evidence shows, you want to paint Hillary's loss on her gender. Not the voters that said they flipped because she ignored them. Not her advisors who said she ignored her advice. Not her campaign message, which said nothing about her or what she was going to do in office but rather show what an awful man her opponent was. Nothing else. Nope, must be because she's a woman.

You're no better than Trump's "It's rigged!". Everything and everyone is to blame but themselves.

Really, I hope you don't consider yourself a feminist, because your blatant disregard for female representation in other seats to elevate Hillary is pretty gross. These women had to overcome quite a bit to accomplish what they did. Don't diminish their accomplishment because Hillary couldn't seal the deal.

Isn't the Senator elected in their own state? That doesn't really prove by itself that the US as a whole is ready for a female president. That said, no one (reasonable) is saying there is no possibility that the US might elect a woman as president, many (including me) considered it a given before the election. People point out that (despite others claiming sexism does not matter) women are still severely underrepresented in American politics (notably Senate/House), compared to many other countries in the world. There may be good reasons for the discrepancy that are in principle independent of sexism (e.g. importance of military record), but without a detailed analysis it certainly raises the question as to how far the US really has come in that regard. The article even points out the gender split in Senate (likely 21 to 79) and the track record of women in this election (regarding the Senate).

By itself? No. My point is that times are changing and you do see female representation really ramping up. You have gay representatives, women, people of color, etc. White males still outnumber, but as time goes on, the representation is becoming a more accurate picture of the general public.

That's my main point. Gender is a factor but not nearly to the extent Keri is trying to paint. If anything, blaming Hillary's loss on her gender really sets a poor narrative on women and other minorities that are making headway.

I'm surprised a progressive forum like GAF thinks sexism had no effect. I'm guessing a lot are just out for blood.

No one is saying sexism had no effect. Like, literally no one said this. People are saying she was an unlikable candidate (polls showed this MONTHS before election) and ran a shit campaign which was a far bigger effect. That's all.

 

[dramatis]

Hinging all attempts to fix the world on Hillary Clinton just wasn't a good bet, that is all. Humans can be critiqued for being humans, and not every dissenting opinion on someone has to be classed as an -ism. People who don't think Hillary was a good candidate just get fed up with fellow members on the left trying to shame them or label them unjustly. This is blowback due to the stampede of vicious defenders who made the election cycle hell for anyone trying to say they thought Clinton while qualified just wasn't as good as what came before her.

Sexism and inequality among the sexes is a thing, no one is arguing against that, it's just not taken too seriously when anyone tries to argue one of the most successful and privileged women in the world has had it tough because she failed to become the president. In this instance she failed to become president on herself and own campaigns failings, not some injustice that the world handed her. Whatever sexism exists, as it does, was not the major reason the Democrats failed. As I've said a few times on GAF now this campaign was trying to court liberals of whom the majority are open minded decent human beings. It doesn't matter what the assholes on the right were saying as they weren't who had a chance of voting for you. Just as with Obamas campaign it didn't matter what racist bigots on the right were saying, they aren't the ones who could or would vote for him. Unfortunately some of those on the left are beginning to treat some of their fellow lefties with the same ire they aim at the right. This isn't working and will continue to cause massive divides within the same camp. I seen a fair few people labelled sexist just because they strongly supported Bernie over Hillary. Not everyone is always out to play gender politics, especially when it's people IN the liberal camps. We are all largely open minded and decent human beings on this side, and as much as Clinton and her campaign need to take responsibility for this loss, so does the left for making it such a hostile side to be on right now.

I wasn't hinging all attempts to fix the world on Hillary Clinton. When I vote, I wasn't voting for a candidate, like a lot of Sanders supporters who were (and still are) stuck on Sanders. I voted for progress and the preservation of the progress of the past 8 years. I wasn't deluded about the power and limitations of the presidency. I wasn't picky about not voting for Sanders if he didn't win. I understood that most everything he was promising wasn't well thought out and largely promises that he would never be able to keep; I haven't been into politics for long, but the past 8 years have shown me enough to understand the federal government is a community exercise. So when I voted, I wasn't voting for a savior.

Hillary Clinton was born with the privilege of white skin. But from a class and gender standpoint, she was not privileged. Yet she became immensely successful from that beginning, something that people never bother to learn or bother to care. This woman had to climb to the top by sacrificing and compromising and suffering things that male candidates would never have to do.

The people who were called out for being sexist weren't called out for supporting Bernie, they were called out for saying sexist shit as demerits. But they walk away with the impression that they did nothing wrong, that they weren't sexist (because who cops to being sexist? just look at a discussion thread about female character design on gaming side). That sort of denial and dismissiveness is not called out, but in fact being scapegoated. That it's okay to talk about being anti-establishment, except when it's talking about anti-male establishment, then gender has nothing to do with anything, stop talking sexism that takes no blame.

 

[electroshockwave]

White male support for Trump was about in line with other recent Republican candidates. Hillary definitely did worse with white women than Obama. I don't know the specifics for other demographics but although sexism is a factor I don't think the numbers indicate that it was such a significant one.

 

[Boney]

Sexism is a huge reason why she lost.

Clinton is lambasted for trying to earn money through her speeches. She's viewed as corrupt and evil for earning so much money and associating with these kind of people. Donald Trump, who stiffed his workers and contractors, didn't pay taxes, had many Chapter 11 bankruptcies, is viewed as smart and intelligent for using whatever rules in the book to get ahead. We like seeing successful men but are extremely suspicious of successful women.

And let's not forget the 2005 video of "grab her by the pussy" infame. HOW many people tripped over their fat ass to make excuses for that disgusting behaviour. It's "locker room talk", "that's just the way men talk", "boys will be boys". We make excuses because men are presumed to be unable to control their penis, they're automatically attracted to beautiful.

There's millions of other examples. Pretty much every scandal had a huge sexism aspect. And it was enough to flip the 10,000 votes or so needed to flip an election in the crucial swing states.

I'm surprised a progressive forum like GAF thinks sexism had no effect. I'm guessing a lot are just out for blood.

Again, it's not that it had no effect. It's a pervasive constant that has to be taken account on everything. But having it to be the deciding factor is just regressive. Even your examples are bad examples since it doesn't deal with any details or nuances. Trump was seen as a chauvinistic pig and was the key reason why his likeability rates were lower than hers. Trump abusing his workers is terrible absolutely, but it's different from revolving door politics that focuses on satisfying lobbyists.

Again, Clinton campaigned focused on trying to kill his character, and his character was untouchable not because he was a man, since these scandals have killed numerous politicians over the years, but because of how he has run his campaign as unrepentant. Are people more accepting of mysoginistic practices, yes absolutely, but having the conclusion of this process be people prefer stupid men over a smart woman is asinine. First, she won the popular vote. Second, the key states she lost were the ones that were the ones that would benefit the most under Trump's policies. People were willing to tolerate his bad manners because they were voting in their self interest. Hillary's communication wasn't about them, but about his opponent.

 

[Keri]

The perspective is this. Women have an uphill battle to become leaders and competent ones are able to achieve it DESPITE that uphill battle. Despite what all the other evidence shows, you want to paint Hillary's loss on her gender. Not the voters that said they flipped because she ignored them. Not her advisors who said she ignored her advice. Not her campaign message, which said nothing about her or what she was going to do in office but rather show what an awful man her opponent was. Nothing else. Nope, must be because she's a woman.

You're no better than Trump's "It's rigged!". Everything and everyone is to blame but themselves.

Really, I hope you don't consider yourself a feminist, because your blatant disregard for female representation in other seats to elevate Hillary is pretty gross. These women had to overcome quite a bit to accomplish what they did. Don't diminish their accomplishment because Hillary couldn't seal the deal.

I hope that you don't consider yourself a feminist, because you obviously haven't listened to what I've been saying. Instead, you seem to be trying to shame me into silence, by suggesting that I'm hurting other women or ignoring their accomplishments. It's the same strategy that has been used against feminists for decades. It's always "SHUT UP...for reasons"

I really recommend that you review the full scope of this thread, (along with the research that has been cited and ignored), to see what it is the women in here have been trying to say. Sexism was a significant factor, if a man could have campaigned the same way as Hillary and won. That doesn't mean her campaign was perfect and it doesn't mean that other things didn't affect her chance of winning. 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.

 

[Sephzilla]

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.

 

[The Shadow]

I hope that you don't consider yourself a feminist, because you obviously haven't listened to what I've been saying. Instead, you seem to be trying to shame me into silence, by suggesting that I'm hurting other women or ignoring their accomplishments. It's the same strategy that has been used against feminists for decades. It's always "SHUT UP...for reasons"

That's pretty much the problem here, isn't it? People are giving pretty valid reasons why gender wasn't the sole or even largest factor in her loss but your attitude is pretty much "Shut up!". The cult of Hillary continues, it would seem.

I really recommend that you review the full scope of this thread, (along with the research that has been cited and ignored), to see what it is the women in here have been trying to say. Sexism was a significant factor, if a man could have campaigned the same way as Hillary and won. That doesn't mean her campaign was perfect and it doesn't mean that other things didn't affect her chance of winning. 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.

You're asking me to speculate with you and say, "Uh huh. Yes, this is why she lost the election."

I don't do speculation. No one in this thread is denying sexism isn't a thing. No one can concretely say how much or how little of a factor it was. No seriously, it's true. Try to quantify how much it was a factor. You can't. It's guesswork, fueled by emotion. You're saying it was THE factor, I'm saying that's bullshit. That's that.

What you can't speculate on is all the other factors that concretely did occur. Her ignoring campaign advice. Rust belt voters telling reporters they felt ignored, that her statements on ending coal jobs and calling half the voting public "deplorable" burned them deeply. Ignoring her own baggage and pointing her finger in deflection.

I firmly believe man or woman, no one would win an election based on that. Man or woman, I'd be just as angry with them for running such a shit campaign. Man or woman, no one deserves to win running a shit campaign.

I don't care if you're a minority, person of color, or a woman. If you've made mistakes, I'm going to do you the honor and address those mistakes and call them out. Not excuse you because you're a minority, PoC, or a woman.

 

[Kinyou]

I think it's impossible to expect the parties to address sexism, when your average liberal won't even acknowledge it's presence or effect in this election. Unfortunately, this election just shows that female candidates are a liability - The only example we have of a woman getting the opportunity to attempt to be President, shows her being overwhelmingly defeated by the least qualified candidate to ever run in American History. A candidate who, today, is only just learning what a President actually does.

Can we really say she was overwhelmingly defeated if she won the popular vote? I believe it's fair to say that things might have been different if the campaign had focused other states.

 

[Audioboxer]

I wasn't hinging all attempts to fix the world on Hillary Clinton. When I vote, I wasn't voting for a candidate, like a lot of Sanders supporters who were (and still are) stuck on Sanders. I voted for progress and the preservation of the progress of the past 8 years. I wasn't deluded about the power and limitations of the presidency. I wasn't picky about not voting for Sanders if he didn't win. I understood that most everything he was promising wasn't well thought out and largely promises that he would never be able to keep; I haven't been into politics for long, but the past 8 years have shown me enough to understand the federal government is a community exercise. So when I voted, I wasn't voting for a savior.

Hillary Clinton was born with the privilege of white skin. But from a class and gender standpoint, she was not privileged. Yet she became immensely successful from that beginning, something that people never bother to learn or bother to care. This woman had to climb to the top by sacrificing and compromising and suffering things that male candidates would never have to do.

The people who were called out for being sexist weren't called out for supporting Bernie, they were called out for saying sexist shit as demerits. But they walk away with the impression that they did nothing wrong, that they weren't sexist (because who cops to being sexist? just look at a discussion thread about female character design on gaming side). That sort of denial and dismissiveness is not called out, but in fact being scapegoated. That it's okay to talk about being anti-establishment, except when it's talking about anti-male establishment, then gender has nothing to do with anything, stop talking sexism that takes no blame.

Thanks for the follow-up. I do actually agree with the majority of what you and others like Keri are saying in this topic. My pragmatism is more based around the fact that right now the Dems cannot make the same mistakes again, but actually having a female candidate was not one of the mistakes. What the arguments are saying is she might have been the wrong female candidate, not that a female candidate is wrong. It would actually be best that they do put forward a female candidate for 2020. If that candidate won my rebuttal would never be right that's it sexism is over folks. Just like my comments on Obama are never there is proof racism is over. Such remarks are ludicrous.

The Democrats need to appeal to the left and liberals, and the left and liberals need to appeal to each other. As it's no surprise most of this camp is totally on board with equal opportunities, and kindness and care. What no one should want is for the left to continue to become a bitter circle of name calling and viciousness. It is in my opinion a small part of why the Dems bled votes and as weak as this link may be I think Hillary getting on board with the basket of deplorables chat not only caused the left to go after the right, but for some loudmouths to feel empowered to shoot down those on the left with different opinions. In such a way they might as well see them all as a deplorable, even people on the same side. I'd like to make an obvious remark that no someone is not simply a deplorable person for having a different opinion than you. That is not a valid way for anyone to make themselves feel superior over someone else as life is all about having your opinions challenged and possibly refined till you're in the grave.

At least keeping that in the context of arguing with fellow liberals. Of course some on the right are just awful people and it really is not just a difference of opinions, but pointing out horrendous viewpoints and discrimination.

 

[tbm24]

just keep on trucking. You're fundamentally misunderstanding the electorate and instead pinning it all on sexism, as if most of these people really give a shit if she ran a better campaign.

Would like to point out I've seen this said over and over and over. I haven't seen a single user flat out say she lost ONLY for being a woman. The article in the OP even begins by saying she not lose ONLY because she was a woman, yet all I see are posts dismissing a point that was never made.

 

[The Shadow]

Would like to point out I've seen this said over and over and over. I haven't seen a single user flat out say she lost ONLY for being a woman. The article in the OP even begins by saying she not lose ONLY because she was a woman, yet all I see are posts dismissing a point that was never made.

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

Only...Significant. I think those are minor details. The point is, there were multiple significant factors that contributed to her loss. The argument that a man could have won given everything else being equal is baloney. It ignores the critical things that need to be fixed next election, and focuses on something that shouldn't make a difference, her gender.

Would Hillary would have won if she was a man? I say no. A man would not have won given the same campaign. I'll go one further that if Elizabeth Warren had ran, she would have won. Gender didn't sink Hillary. Multiple other fuck ups sank her.

 

[Zaphrynn]

Would like to point out I've seen this said over and over and over. I haven't seen a single user flat out say she lost ONLY for being a woman. The article in the OP even begins by saying she not lose ONLY because she was a woman, yet all I see are posts dismissing a point that was never made.

Shocker. It's like, a big "no shit" to anyone that Hillary didn't JUST lose because of her gender, and I haven't seen a single person claim otherwise. And there are three decades of sexism weighing Hillary down. There's no magic, single point here.

I'd like to briefly point out that women like Elizabeth Warren ONLY started being seriously talked about and propped up in opposition to Hillary. "Look at these other women! These women are good, better women." Honestly hadn't heard shit about Warren until it was in comparison to Hillary.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

You can be dismissive of economic anxiety, but Bill Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden were all greatly concerned about that issue.

Poor people voted for Hillary more than they did Trump.

And seemed to know that the election was going to hinge on whoever could connect with voters on it. Hillary decided to outright ignore those people and instead try to continue a message of hitting Trump on his lack of ability to run the country and his temperament. Neither of which addressed the concerns of those people.

Sure it did. If Trump is incapable of running a country and has a shit temperament, how can he hope to solve the problems of the lower middle class? It's self-evident.

As far as why the Crooked/Liar/Disingenuous idea stuck to Hillary so well, i'll direct people to an ad that Obama hit her with in 2008

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3...change-nothing

The key part of the ad is "Hillary Clinton, she'll say anything and change nothing". It also talks about her lying about Obama. The article has additional points. Like when she completely fabricated a story about being under sniper fire after landing in Bosnia during one trip. Footage would later be released showing that she greeted people after landing and posed for photos with troops after landing. And Dailykos is very liberal, so it's not some right-wing conspiracy website.

Again, this is the kind of minor bullshit that would not even have been a blip on the radar for a standard male politician.

You're telling me Republicans, unless otherwise charmed, would automatically vote Trump because he's the annointed nominee? Regardless of how awful he is and despite major opposition from their party elders and leadership? And by extension, that Republican voters are sufficiently conservative to be fine voting for bigotry but sufficiently progressive that they're gender blind.

Did I get all that right?

Gotta love those mental gymnastics, huh. xD

I love these moment of truth. From the outside you guys on both sides are all the same.
Nothing but hatred and animosity towards anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Spare me your false equivalence. Hating bigotry is not the same as hating someone for their race or gender. A large and significant portion of the American electorate are indeed incredibly bigoted, and that's a fact.

Yes, it's an achievement. I didn't deny that race makes things hard for minorities. I'm an Asian, and even then we're the model minority until we're too good, and then nobody wants you getting in on their slice of the pie.

The article that I posted presents research indicating the difficulties of a woman winning the presidency in presidential systems. I don't see any valid refutations of this information in this thread. What I see instead are a horde of people who are stuck on Hillary Clinton, insisting that sexism has nothing to do with why she lost, when I think it can be a factor. I see you, a black man, who should know better than to play oppression olympics and acknowledge that women share a different set of problems against a male-oriented society compared to black people.

It is not a fucking comparison between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It is about looking at our society, our perceptions, and whether or not gender has an influence on women entering and participating in politics, and what kind of baggage women have to face to make it to the top.

But people want to say, "Hillary Clinton didn't lose because of sexism", as if what the article is suggesting is overwriting all other reasons. They fixate on Hillary Clinton and on sexism, and awkwardly use the first to pretend the second doesn't exist for Hillary Clinton, despite the very evident fact that she's a woman! Can you imagine if Obama lost in 2008, and someone said race had nothing to do with why he lost? No, nobody is saying sexism is THE primary reason. People are suggesting, I don't know, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, gender has something to do with how women are seen and treated in politics.

But women can't have just that bit, because a black man got elected means a white woman could get elected, as if those were somehow equal—and you yourself don't even consider it so, you think the white woman should be higher up on the hierarchy. But there has been no woman who has been elected president, white or not. There has only been one female presidential candidate of a major party. There's no solid proof that a white woman can do it, so maybe there should be an analysis not only of Hillary Clinton but of women in politics worldwide to better understand gender politics.

There are more than enough guys who want to argue it's all on Hillary, that it wasn't about sexism. They can't conceive of the notion that the Hillary Clinton of today is formed by her experiences as a woman, the woman who was told she didn't look like a politician's wife, and that's why her husband didn't get reelected after his first term as governor. The woman who was told in college, while sitting for an exam, by a bunch of white guys who wanted to dodge the draft, what she was doing there and why she was trying to take their spots that would save them from being drafted. The woman who was laughed at and publicly humiliated nationwide, and even blamed for her husband's infidelity. The woman who was also blamed for sticking with her marriage and making it through. The woman who could easily place in the top 10 most qualified presidential candidates of all time, but once she is qualified, those qualifications became baggage.

Women think they have to be more qualified, they have to be twice as excellent to get the same position for less pay, they don't have confidence that men do. They don't push and shove in negotiations, and when they do, they're viewed unfavorably compared to men who do the same thing. These things that are observed in general business employment don't only affect everyday women, they can possibly affect women in politics too, because before they are politicians, before they are Republican or Democrat or Green or whatever, those women are women.

Posted for the next page. Also bolded the most important bits, for those who keep going "la-la-a", READ THIS AGAIN dammit.

But everyone knew he was horrible. His likability rating was constantly in the dumps. So, she was just beating them over the with something they already knew.

And? It should have been more than enough. But they still didn't vote for her and voted for him instead (or refused to vote pragmatically by staying home, handing the state over to Trump).

She did nothing to address the financial issues that some people there are going through.

Neither did Trump!

Again, you are doing a huge disservice to women who actually win their elections and have set a positive example for others. By saying Hillary lost because she's a woman, you're diminishing others who have made history.

Really, I hope you don't consider yourself a feminist,

.................................................
I... can't respond to these without getting banned. I just can't.

Yes, Keri is the bad feminist and the real sexist here. Urgh.

The best part is that I'm sure you have zero idea how offensive you are being right now.

The perspective is this. Women have an uphill battle to become leaders and competent ones are able to achieve it DESPITE that uphill battle.

And plenty fail to win that uphill battle too despite being competent.

Nothing else. Nope, must be because she's a woman.

Another dishonest strawman.

You're no better than Trump's "It's rigged!".

Oh for fuck's sake...

Would like to point out I've seen this said over and over and over. I haven't seen a single user flat out say she lost ONLY for being a woman. The article in the OP even begins by saying she not lose ONLY because she was a woman, yet all I see are posts dismissing a point that was never made.

Yuuuup

 

[Media]

This thread is baffling to me, seriously guys. We are saying it was large factor. We get shouted down and insulted for saying that.

JUST LIKE HERE ON GAF, casual sexism is way more pervasive in our society than people, especially progressives, like to think. Yes Hillary and her campaign made a lot of mistakes. But she was held to a different standard than her opponent, by the public and by the media. Why? Even here, I saw threads during speeches where people were saying she should smile more, and the next speech when she did they were saying her smile was creepy. The amount of times I've heard 'unlikable' and 'untrustworthy' I can't count. Her weakness and health were point that were driven over and over again. And her average amount of scandals became relevant even when her opponent was a walking, talking racist scandal.

Why?

We can point out her mistake in Michigan all we want. But wasn't that late in the campaign? The either thing was heavily shaded by the sexism that we see everyday and everyone else is blind too because they don't want to accept that it's that bad.

 

[Boney]

Why are people getting so heated exclaiming one or the other is shouting about.

The thing is that blaming outside forces as the most significant factor is lazy and not genuine, especially when contrasted with all the other facts like South American women presidents, Senate winners and her unlikeablility numbers.

If the argument about how she's percieved as unlikeable to others is because she's a woman, it stands out that she is far above any other peers, and if we should ignore her unpopular positions and remarks to just focus how the media and the GOP have been able to attack her because she was the First Lady and a career politician that was "destined" to win the presidency, well it wouldn't be wrong at all.

But the fact of the matter is, what are the lessons to be learned from this. And I don't think that the political arena is impossible to manage for women due to the intrinsic sexism that operates in our society, and that is the point of contention that we argue.

Shocker. It's like, a big "no shit" to anyone that Hillary didn't JUST lose because of her gender, and I haven't seen a single person claim otherwise. And there are three decades of sexism weighing Hillary down. There's no magic, single point here.

I'd like to briefly point out that women like Elizabeth Warren ONLY started being seriously talked about and propped up in opposition to Hillary. "Look at these other women! These women are good, better women." Honestly hadn't heard shit about Warren until it was in comparison to Hillary.

She was a college professor. In fact, it was her that tutored Hillary on the deregulation of banks and it's consequences after they took Glass Steagall. She has been a starlet in social economy and her run as senator has been one of the most stand out due to her unrelentless to chastise big money interests and their fuck ups.

It doesn't surprise me that Hillary supporter wouldn't know about her since she's more of a candidate of the political unengaged.

 

[StormKing]

The issue with blaming sexism for Hillary's loss is that it's an indirect way of saying that it's not Hillary's fault that she lost.

That's why there's push back against it. Yes, sexism is an issue in America. But, no sexism is not why Hillary Clinton lost the election.

Did Bernie Sanders lose the primaries because Democratic voters are biased against men?

 

[Zaphrynn]

She was a college professor. In fact, it was her that tutored Hillary on the deregulation of banks and it's consequences after they took Glass Steagall. She has been a starlet in social economy and her run as senator has been one of the most stand out due to her unrelentless to chastise big money interests and their fuck ups.

It doesn't surprise me that Hillary supporter wouldn't know about her since she's more of a candidate of the political unengaged.

1.) I'm going to agree that I was personally ignorant of Warren, and probably should have worded my post better. But to ignore that Warren wasn't propped up in opposition to Hillary so that people can claim they aren't sexist is naive. For the politically unengaged, Warren was definitely used this way.

2.) Your second statement, while delightfully condescending, is laughable considering that PoliGaf was all in on Hillary, and they are far from uninformed on this forum.

But I'm sure it felt good to get that out?

The issue with blaming sexism for Hillary's loss was that it's an indirect way of saying that it's not Hillary's fault that she lost.

WOW. I'll stop talking about sexism in STEM because it indirectly alleviates me of responsibility when I don't do as well as my male peers. Got it.

 

[IamDodongo]

It doesn't surprise me that Hillary supporter wouldn't know about her since she's more of a candidate of the political unengaged.

Surely you can make your argument without needlessly petty blanket statements about Hillary supporters.

I think the poster above was just bringing up the suspicious amount of people who immediately and feverishly rush into threads to say "No, there's no bias against women in politics. It's just that woman. We can even list a whole other woman we know of!"

 

[The Shadow]

The issue with blaming sexism for Hillary's loss was that it's an indirect way of saying that it's not Hillary's fault that she lost.

That's why there's push back against it. Yes, sexism is an issue in America. But, no sexism is not why Hillary Clinton lost the election.

Did Bernie Sanders lose the primaries because Democratic voters are biased against men?

Thanks for explaining it so succinctly. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

I would go one further and say that sexism as a factor is just a guess. No one here can say how little or how much of a factor it played. That's a fact. I dare anyone to tell me they can quantify how much sexism as a detriment played in this election. Give me something concrete, and I'll be right on board.

What is a fact is the multiple other missteps that occurred. These things really happened. These absoultely 100% did occur.

So when someone tells me "Sexism was a significant factor!" or "She lost because she's a woman!". My first reaction is that it's an excuse. Why? Because there is absolutely no way to say one way or another if that's true. What is true? Everything else that's being ignored in this thread. Those things can be fixed. Those are things the DNC can work on. Those are things we can concretely say went wrong.

Sexism was a factor? Sure. I'd guarantee it even. Was it significant? Did it cost her the election? Prove it. If you're so sure, give me quantifiable proof. Otherwise, it's an emotionally charged convenient excuse when work can be done elsewhere.

 

[IamDodongo]

I would go one further and say that sexism as a factor is just a guess. No one here can say how little or how much of a factor it played. That's a fact. I dare anyone to tell me they can quantify how much sexism as a detriment played in this election.

This is one of my least favorite types of argument, and I see it a lot when civil rights or prejudice come up. It places the burden of proof entirely on the potential victim. I guess things should only matter if they are quantifiable and completely cut and dry.

For fun, let's use The Shadow's argument to be about Obama in 2008.

I would go one further and say that racism as a factor is just a guess. No one here can say how little or how much of a factor it played. That's a fact. I dare anyone to tell me they can quantify how much racism as a detriment played in this election.

Whoops. Sounds pretty out of touch, doesn't it?

 

[The Shadow]

This is one of my least favorite types of argument, and I see it a lot when civil rights or prejudice come up. It places the burden of proof entirely on the potential victim. For fun, let's use your argument to be about Obama in 2008.



Whoops. Sounds pretty out of touch, doesn't it?

Nope, given that more white people voted for Obama than voted for Hillary. Especially since he was a black man with Hussein for a middle name.

There is no proof, because it's speculative. Which is exactly why you didn't provide a concrete level of how much sexism played in the election.

And that's the problem with speculation. We can talk about how little or how much sexism had an effect and we'd make zero inroads on how to win in 2020. You know what is fixable? All the issues myself and others brought up. You know what isn't helpful? Speculative excuses and guesswork.

I guess I'm just not as pessimistic about the chances for a women president as you are. I firmly believe America is ready for a woman president. I don't think it was ready for Hillary Clintion.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

This thread is baffling to me, seriously guys. We are saying it was large factor. We get shouted down and insulted for saying that.

JUST LIKE HERE ON GAF, casual sexism is way more pervasive in our society than people, especially progressives, like to think. Yes Hillary and her campaign made a lot of mistakes. But she was held to a different standard than her opponent, by the public and by the media. Why? Even here, I saw threads during speeches where people were saying she should smile more, and the next speech when she did they were saying her smile was creepy. The amount of times I've heard 'unlikable' and 'untrustworthy' I can't count. Her weakness and health were point that were driven over and over again. And her average amount of scandals became relevant even when her opponent was a walking, talking racist scandal.

Why?

We can point out her mistake in Michigan all we want. But wasn't that late in the campaign? The either thing was heavily shaded by the sexism that we see everyday and everyone else is blind too because they don't want to accept that it's that bad.

Because Clinton supporters are using it as a shield to continue defending the currently democratic party establishment, which has completely failed on absolutely every level and needs to be bleed from the party immediately.

I'm already hearing right now from people like Amanda Marcotte, saying shit like "Sure, our country is sliding into fascism, but hey, maybe we can return to a liberal-left where men have 80% of the jobs! Whew!"

And "The eagerness to put women, especially, on the back burner and turn all leadership over to men is just naked and disgusting.Amanda Marcotte added,"

And she a loyal Clinton supporter all throughout the Primary with her stories. She smeared and lambasted Bernie and his supporters all year long because she was hoping for a nice job with the Clinton administration.

The reason you're getting so much push back is because Clinton and her supporters are pushing this narrative that it wasn't their inept leadership that ruined the entire party and the fact that they've abandoned their constituency in favor of exclusively working for supermillionaires they meed at all their fancy cocktail parties, but because Bernie Sanders and the "liberal left" are viscous sexists and hate women and want to ban them from having jobs. The reason they're pushing that narrative is because they're all hoping you buy that narrative so that they can take the party reins again.

No one thinks Elizabeth Warren is untrustworthy or fake. The reason is because she's an actual progressive and that she's actually allied with working people. She isn't giving hollow platitudes while spending all her time at $300,000 fundraising dinners with donors who are economically and ideologically driven to suppress wages and rob the American worker.

And no, people do no like when Bill Clinton makes hundreds of millions of dollars from Wall Street. People don't like that Obama holds those same fundraisers, and when he starts making that money from the same people once he leaves office. It's just that you can only fool people for so long before people start to get wise to it.

The issue with blaming sexism for Hillary's loss is that it's an indirect way of saying that it's not Hillary's fault that she lost.

That's why there's push back against it. Yes, sexism is an issue in America. But, no sexism is not why Hillary Clinton lost the election.

Did Bernie Sanders lose the primaries because Democratic voters are biased against men?

If you ask Clinton supporters in the press like Amanda Marcotte, yes that is the only reason she ever lost a primary was because the "liberal-left" only cares about putting women out of work.

 

[Onemic]

Hillary didnt lose because she was a woman. Come on. And no, it wasn't a large factor either.

She straight up had a terrible campaign and team.

 

[Media]

Because you're using it as a shield to continue defending the currently democratic party establishment, which has completely failed on absolutely every level and needs to be bleed from the party immediately.

I'm already hearing right now from people like Amanda Marcotte, saying shit like "Sure, our country is sliding into fascism, but hey, maybe we can return to a liberal-left where men have 80% of the jobs! Whew!"

And "The eagerness to put women, especially, on the back burner and turn all leadership over to men is just naked and disgusting.Amanda Marcotte added,"

And she a loyal Clinton supporter all throughout the Primary with her stories. She smeared and lambasted Bernie and his supporters all year long because she was hoping for a nice job with the Clinton administration.

The reason you're getting so much push back is because Clinton and her supporters are pushing this narrative that it wasn't their inept leadership that ruined the entire party and the fact that they've abandoned their constituency in favor of exclusively working for supermillionaires they meed at all their fancy cocktail parties, but because Bernie Sanders and the "liberal left" are viscous sexists and hate women and want to ban them from having jobs. The reason they're pushing that narrative is because they're all hoping you buy that narrative so that they can take the party reins again.

No one thinks Elizabeth Warren is untrustworthy or fake. The reason is because she's an actual progressive and that she's actually allied with working people. She isn't giving hollow platitudes while spending all her time at $300,000 fundraising dinners with donors who are economically and ideologically driven to suppress wages and rob the American worker.

And no, people do no like when Bill Clinton makes hundreds of millions of dollars from Wall Street. People don't like that Obama holds those same fundraisers, and when he starts making that money from the same people once he leaves office. It's just that you can only fool people for so long before people start to get wise to it.



If you ask Clinton supporters in the press like Amanda Marcotte, yes that is the only reason she ever lost a primary was because the "liberal-left" only cares about putting women out of work.

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.

 

[IamDodongo]

There is no proof, because it's speculative. Which is exactly why you didn't provide a concrete level of how much sexism played in the election.

And that's the problem with speculation. We can talk about how little or how much sexism had an effect and we'd make zero inroads on how to win in 2020. You know what is fixable? All the issues myself and others brought up. You know what isn't helpful? Speculative excuses and guesswork.

So, just to verify, this is your argument:

1. No one should talk about sexism in politics because we can't really know the extent

2. No one should talk about sexism in politics because there are more important things to discuss

Is that correct?

I guess I'm just not as pessimistic about the chances for a women president as you are. I

 

[Audioboxer]

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.

While that hurts it is irrelevant. Republicans and assholes on the right are going to vote Republican. All they have proven this vote is that their desire to go out and vote is more important than their candidate. Which is sad, but its unsurprising given how many treat it as their religion and muh guns. However liberals on the left require more effort than to just say go and vote please. That is what Hillary failed to capture and why roughly 6 million seemingly didn't bother their asses from 2012. Roughly 10m in total since 2008. America has a serious problem on the left and retaining voters. Even Obama dropped a sizeable chunk after 4 years in the seat. They aren't going over to the Republicans, or at least votes on the right don't suggest that as they aren't shooting up. Americans are just staying at home and that is a massive problem.

It makes the loss painful, I do concede that. No one to ever walk the face of this planet will ever want to lose to Donald Trump.

I just think after Obamas Hope campaign which after having 8 years in the WH has had mixed results people weren't looking to go back to someone who is an even bigger career politician. Bernie as old as he is at least seemed like a change with all his socialism. I think Obama has been one of the best presidents but even he leaves office with most likely less done than he wanted in 8 years. I'm pretty sure he said that himself and yes I know a large problem is all the resistance he faced, but some didn't have much confidence Hillary was going to do much better. Bernie was like the wildcard that Obamas original campaign was when it kicked off as Hope. The American people on the left just seem jaded as fuck and thats my 2 cents on why 10m have been bled since 2008.

I may not be right but I think there is more at play here than any -isms. As much as I've already conceded they are a problem of some magnitude.

 

[The Shadow]

So, just to verify, this is your argument:

1. No one should talk about sexism in politics because we can't really know the extent

2. No one should talk about sexism in politics because there are more important things to discuss

Is that correct?

No. Neither. Please highlight where I said or suggested either of those things. As a matter of fact, can anyone highlight where I said or implied either?

I've said:

1. That sexism unquestionably exists.
2. The amount it played in the election is unquantifiable and speculative.
3. Concentrate on the factual issues with the campaign, not on issues that aren't directly fixable or evident.

That's it. Honestly the amount my arguments are being misconstrued, I feel like I'm being trolled.

And yeah, you can post all the cute images you want, I stand by that statement. If a better woman candidate ran against Trump, she would have won. I 100% believe that that America would elect a better candidate, irregardless of gender.

Also, still don't see any concrete quantifiable measure of how much sexism played. Really, I change my mind based on the evidence in front of me all the time. I really want to see some evidence of this. Don't tell me it played a significant role. Give me reasons to believe you. I don't think that's too much to ask.

 

[xevis]

Thanks for the follow-up. I do actually agree with the majority of what you and others like Keri are saying in this topic. My pragmatism is more based around the fact that right now the Dems cannot make the same mistakes again, but actually having a female candidate was not one of the mistakes. What the arguments are saying is she might have been the wrong female candidate, not that a female candidate is wrong. It would actually be best that they do put forward a female candidate for 2020. If that candidate won my rebuttal would never be right that's it sexism is over folks. Just like my comments on Obama are never there is proof racism is over. Such remarks are ludicrous.

You weren't responding to me but I hope you won't mind me butting in.

I haven't seen anyone argue that it is not possible for a woman to be elected in the US; only that women are held to different standards than men when they reach for power. It's not enough to be good and a woman and it's not enough to be better than the man you're up against. To succeed as a woman you need to be truly remarkable in every respect.

I won't attempt to rehash the many great posts so far talking about the use of gendered language and the double standards that arose during the campaign. I do think you should revisit those posts and try to understand that perspective. Yes the DNC made mistakes but the implicit (and sometimes explicit) sexism behind arguments tearing her down was a definite issue. Even a bad candidate should have won and Hillary was much better than that.

 

[Audioboxer]

I haven't seen anyone argue that it is not possible for a woman to be elected in the US; only that women are held to different standards than men when they reach for power. It's not enough to be good and a woman and it's not enough to be better than the man you're up against. To succeed as a woman you need to be truly remarkable in every respect.

I won't attempt to rehash the many great posts so far talking about the use of gendered language and the double standards that arose during the campaign. I do think you should revisit those posts and try to understand that perspective. Yes the DNC made mistakes but the implicit (and sometimes explicit) sexism behind arguments tearing her down was a definite issue. Even a bad candidate should have won and Hillary was much better than that.

Well that depends on your perspective of whether or not you think Hillary is good? Qualified sure, but "good" sadly in an election isn't just about your qualifications but your whole campaign and whether voters take to you.

Again the blowback doesn't seem to be anyone saying sexism doesn't exist. I don't know why heads keep getting locked here with people shouting you're not listening to me. It is that many perspectives exist on why Hillary wasn't a great runner for getting the liberals out and voting. There is a multitude of reasons why that happened, of which most are accepting sexism is one, but its rather far down on the list of reasons for a few of us. Primarily because as I've said in here we're addressing the left and liberals, not the right. The left are nowhere near as toxic as the right with intolerance and -ism.

I honestly think most liberals couldn't care at all that she has a vagina. They just didn't get switched on by her campaign and ultimately voters stayed at home or a small amount went 3rd party. This really has nothing to do with right wing media or republicans who were hurling sexist abuse at her. These people don't vote Democrat and aren't the reason the election was lost.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

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.

You weren't responding to me but I hope you won't mind me butting in.

I haven't seen anyone argue that it is not possible for a woman to be elected in the US; only that women are held to different standards than men when they reach for power. It's not enough to be good and a woman and it's not enough to be better than the man you're up against. To succeed as a woman you need to be truly remarkable in every respect.

I won't attempt to rehash the many great posts so far talking about the use of gendered language and the double standards that arose during the campaign. I do think you should revisit those posts and try to understand that perspective. Yes the DNC made mistakes but the implicit (and sometimes explicit) sexism behind arguments tearing her down was a definite issue. Even a bad candidate should have won and Hillary was much better than that.

Yes and yes.

Thank you guys for putting it better than I could. This thread is too frustrating.

 

[Kaleinc]

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

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

"She was a shit candidate."

Compared to Trump? The dude survived by free coverage from the media. They ate him up and entertained him far more than Hillary.

 

[Media]

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

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?

 

[The Shadow]

Even a bad candidate should have won and Hillary was much better than that.

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.

 

[The Albatross]

This is why we lose. Because when conseravatives lose they blame us and when we lose we blame us. Conservative victory is always some hurricane, some inevitable weather phenomenon that it's our job to stop without agency of its own, instead of the conscious choice of people

I think this is the mentality of any partisan. Republicans largely feel the same when they lose to Democrats, hence why after 2012 there was that planning committee put together to see how the GOP could remain relevant in future elections. And also the GOP has a knack for thinking that whenevr they lose an election, they just need to be "more conservative."

FWIW, the 2016 GOP ticket completely went against what the 2012 exploratory committee recommended.

 

[Chariot]

"She was a shit candidate."

Compared to Trump? The dude survived by free coverage from the media. They ate him up and entertained him far more than Hillary.

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.

 

[M°°nblade]

Research: Women who run for political office are seen as "power-seeking" and invoke strong feelings of dislike and disgust, in stark contrast to the way people respond to men.

NeoGAF: Sexism didn't have anything to do with it. Hillary Clinton lost because she's so unlikeable!

I'm sure emotional, crying male politicians invoke strong feelings of dislike and disgust as well. Doesn't make it sexism.

It's pretty self-destroying to complain you had to fight an uphill battle,
- while knowing that research shows that voters especially don't sympathize with female politicians when they are nasty, colleague crushing and power hungry,
- after nominating the queen of stereotypical power bitches (or does that honor go to Sarah Palin?) anyway,

You knew this and you choose to fight this battle (because you underestimated Trump and thought you would win) anyway.

You can be a succesfull and likeable female politician. Mutti Merkel, Theresa May, Virginia Raggi ...

 

[Audioboxer]

I'm sure emotional, crying male politicians invoke strong feelings of dislike and disgust as well. Doesn't make it sexism.

It's pretty self-destroying to complain you had to fight an uphill battle,
- while knowing that research shows that voters especially don't sympathize with female politicians when they are nasty, colleague crushing and power hungry,
- after nominating the queen of stereotypical power bitches (or does that honor go to Sarah Palin?) anyway,

You knew this and you choose to fight this battle (because you underestimated Trump and thought you would win) anyway.

You can be a succesfull and likeable female politician. Mutti Merkel, Theresa May, ...

lolwut?

Put Nicola Sturgeon in there instead Even when Scotland didn't vote for independence in 2014 we turn around the next General Election in 2015 and give Sturgeon and the SNP 56 out of a possible 59 seats for Scotland. In other words overwhelming support for her.

Theresa May is shaping up to be Margaret Thatcher 2.0 and Brits know how that ended.

 

[The Shadow]

Ok. Fine. I'll just go right out and ask.

Can someone explain why exactly they think it played a major factor in her loss? Like, not that sexism exists, no one in this thread disputes that. What evidence or suggestion is out there that sexism is the root cause of her loss?

Go.

 

[M°°nblade]

lolwut?

Put Nicola Sturgeon in there instead Even when Scotland didn't vote for independence in 2014 we turn around the next General Election in 2015 and give Sturgeon and the SNP 56 out of a possible 59 seats for Scotland. In other words overwhelming support for her.

Theresa May is shaping up to be Margaret Thatcher 2.0 and Brits know how that ended.

Nicola Sturgeon, completely forgot about her. :-(
Then there's Virginia Raggi.
Even Marine Le Pen is more likely than snobby, elitist Hillary Clinton imo.

 

[Koyuga]

Hillary Clinton lost because she ran a lazy and disconnected campaign.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Poor people voted for Hillary more than they did Trump.

Obviously not enough given that she lost in key states where the economy was a real issue. And not enough given people around her were telling her to speak to those people about those issues. She chose to ignore them and this is the result.

Sure it did. If Trump is incapable of running a country and has a shit temperament, how can he hope to solve the problems of the lower middle class? It's self-evident.

Because she isn't telling them shit about what she is going to do for them. That's why it doesn't do her in favors to just attack him repeatedly over issues that she knows that they already know. This is an issue that's been discussed in this thread or another, but the reality is that you've got to break shit down in simple terms for voters. Trump saying "I'm gonna bring American jobs back to you from "insert country"" does just that, even if it's bullshit. Hillary telling them that Trump is a bad man doesn't tell them anything that concerns them. Trump using a slogan that says "Make America Great Again", tells them that something is broken with the country and that he wants to fix it. Hillary using "Stronger Together" does nothing to acknowledge any issues with the country.

Again, this is the kind of minor bullshit that would not even have been a blip on the radar for a standard male politician.

No, it's not minor bullshit. The sniper fire fabrication in particularly is something she was using to tout her foreign policy experience over Obama. She not only lied about it initially by claiming that she misspoke and was sleep deprived, but it was then prove that her explanations for why she said it was also bullshit. CBS pointed out that she made the same bullshit claims over the course of several months at different rallies. And it all gets to the point that Obama made in that ad about how she'll say anything. So, again it's not minor. It's something that cost her in those primaries and it followed up and did it yet again in this one.

And? It should have been more than enough. But they still didn't vote for her and voted for him instead (or refused to vote pragmatically by staying home, handing the state over to Trump).

Because no one in the past, present or future will ever be owed a vote. You've got to earn it. Democrats tried to pull the same shit in 2004 when they kept jumping around screaming "Can't you see how bad George Bush is? He's so dumb! Vote for us!" and subsequently lost because people don't vote against someone. They vote for them. If you can't put forward a candidate that's capable of telling people why you should vote for them without having to point out what a shitshow your opponent is, then don't act shocked when you lose.

 

[tbm24]

Well that depends on your perspective of whether or not you think Hillary is good? Qualified sure, but "good" sadly in an election isn't just about your qualifications but your whole campaign and whether voters take to you.

Again the blowback doesn't seem to be anyone saying sexism doesn't exist. I don't know why heads keep getting locked here with people shouting you're not listening to me. It is that many perspectives exist on why Hillary wasn't a great runner for getting the liberals out and voting. There is a multitude of reasons why that happened, of which most are accepting sexism is one, but its rather far down on the list of reasons for a few of us. Primarily because as I've said in here we're addressing the left and liberals, not the right. The left are nowhere near as toxic as the right with intolerance and -ism.

I honestly think most liberals couldn't care at all that she has a vagina. They just didn't get switched on by her campaign and ultimately voters stayed at home or a small amount went 3rd party. This really has nothing to do with right wing media or republicans who were hurling sexist abuse at her. These people don't vote Democrat and aren't the reason the election was lost.

Would like to point out, again, the many posts in the first page no less that immediately ignore the research in the article this thread is about, and instead went straight to say she didn't lost the election because of her gender(which taken in that context I think is a load of shit because it is most definitely in the group of reasons why). Now the article at no point was arguing that it was, instead it was exploring the reality for female politicians around the world, of which Clinton is one of them.

Instead the point of the article has been dismissed over and over and over even by yourself. You claim that for some of us, it's towards the bottom of the list, and for other surely it would be higher. If you take the responses in this thread, the majority would opt to not look into the gender aspects and blatant mysoginy aspect of this election in favor of focusing on say rust belt voters or voters who couldn't be assed to go out and vote.

I will argue that it is more problematic to shout down the varying aspects of the way this election turned out, including sexism. The irony being that it looks very much like the main reason it's shouted down is because of the dislike of Clinton herself which is invariably unfair to women as a whole.

 

[Audioboxer]

Nicola Sturgeon, completely forgot about her. :-(
Then there's Virginia Raggi.
Even Marine Le Pen is more likely than snobby, elitist Hillary Clinton imo.

You could probably compare Theresa May's attitude to Hillary tbh. Very bullish. I'd probably rather have Clinton than May though, May is fucking rocket.

Overall though I'd take ANYONE over Trump... Heck resurrect Maggie Thatcher instead.

Would like to point out, again, the many posts in the first page no less that immediately ignore the research in the article this thread is about, and instead went straight to say she didn't lost the election because of her gender(which taken in that context I think is a load of shit because it is most definitely in the group of reasons why). Now the article at no point was arguing that it was, instead it was exploring the reality for female politicians around the world, of which Clinton is one of them.

Instead the point of the article has been dismissed over and over and over even by yourself. You claim that for some of us, it's towards the bottom of the list, and for other surely it would be higher. If you take the responses in this thread, the majority would opt to not look into the gender aspects and blatant mysoginy aspect of this election in favor of focusing on say rust belt voters or voters who couldn't be assed to go out and vote.

I will argue that it is more problematic to shout down the varying aspects of the way this election turned out, including sexism. The irony being that it looks very much like the main reason it's shouted down is because of the dislike of Clinton herself which is invariably unfair to women as a whole.

You might be right, the topic has verged into a grab bag of discussing 2015/2016 Clinton and the Dem campaign. It's kind of hard to avoid that as everyone is still raw about the defeat and trying to make sense of it.

 

[tbm24]

Ok. Fine. I'll just go right out and ask.

Can someone explain why exactly they think it played a major factor in her loss? Like, not that sexism exists, no one in this thread disputes that. What evidence or suggestion is out there that sexism is the root cause of her loss?

Go.

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.