Is Hillary Clinton a Sore Loser?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Sable
This woman can't get over it. Accused Trump during the election of refusing to accept the results. Which she clearly still has not accepted the results. So the fair question is, Is she a sore loser?

Killjoy12
Is this a joke question? Everyone (even liberals) have got to know Hillary is a very sore loser.

Sable
But she said he was a direct threat to democracy cause he would not respect the results of the election. She even calls him a sore loser, this is pretty amazing to watch.

6YllfdttzfY

Digi
I mean, maybe, but what good is he answer to the title's question? Ostensibly, in her book she talks about varying factors that led to her loss. Sure, maybe it's sour grapes, but analysis of the past - especially when the consensus opinion was wrong - is a noble endeavor, and she had a front-row seat.

From some of what I've heard - at least the only sources I can find not just trying to tell her to shut up for whatever reason - there's some genuine substance beneath the parts that are upsetting people. Past the "Hilary blames Bernie!" clickbait titles, and many similar clickbait titles, is an actual list of factors that, in some capacity, did lose her a winnable election, and likely some nuance to arguments like "Hillary blames Bernie!" that actually have merit and aren't just the ramblings of an also-ran.

As a rule, I'm not a fan of politicians and how they try to spin their own stories. But that doesn't mean their viewpoint should be ignored. And there's clearly an audience for her message - if only to feel smugly condescending toward it (which, let's be honest, sells as well as anything). So... /srug

BackFire
Lol Sable, you essentially have "Yes" as the only option for the poll.

Really you should have just had "Yes" listed twice, would have been funny.

I agree with Digi as well.

Sable
But I did list yes twice. lol

BackFire
I know, but I mean like how I just changed the poll.

(I'll change it back in a bit, don't worry)

Sable
Lol, just leave it. It is better that way.

BackFire
Will do.

Foxsteak
That poll is biased and unfair

Rigged!

Thorne
hilldog should have won

cdtm
This is a close poll.

shiv
Blubberoni

Premium Quality

RIGATONI

Silent Master
Hillary is the reason why Hillary lost, if she had been a better candidate none of the excuses listed in her book or interviews would have mattered.

Surtur
Originally posted by Digi
I mean, maybe, but what good is he answer to the title's question? Ostensibly, in her book she talks about varying factors that led to her loss. Sure, maybe it's sour grapes, but analysis of the past - especially when the consensus opinion was wrong - is a noble endeavor, and she had a front-row seat.

It's a noble endeavor if you come at it seriously. Not if you pass the buck to anyone and everyone but yourself, and before you say "she does accept some responsibility!" see the next part of my post.



Thing is, these things actually do not have merit in the context Hilary uses them. She isn't merely just saying "these things played a role". She is saying they are the cause of her loss. She flat out said no when asked if she thinks she made enough mistakes on her own to lose the election. That speaks volumes and robs the book of anything "noble" about it. It's just a bitter politician who thought the presidency was owed to her("it's her turn" was a slogan her staffers toyed with using), doing the cliche thing they all do which is say they aren't perfect(she does say she made some mistakes) before immediately passing the buck. Bernie. Obama. Russia. Comey. Social media. The mainstream media. White people. Racism. Sexism. Obama a second time(first for Russia, then over coal).

There isn't anything noble about the book.

carthage
Bane dies

Robtard
Originally posted by BackFire
Lol Sable, you essentially have "Yes" as the only option for the poll.

Really you should have just had "Yes" listed twice, would have been funny.

I agree with Digi as well.

Should really have changed the the thread to:

"Does Hillary ruin my life?"

-Yes she does

-No, but I act like she does every day

Digi
Originally posted by Surtur
It's a noble endeavor if you come at it seriously. Not if you pass the buck to anyone and everyone but yourself, and before you say "she does accept some responsibility!" see the next part of my post.



Thing is, these things actually do not have merit in the context Hilary uses them. She isn't merely just saying "these things played a role". She is saying they are the cause of her loss. She flat out said no when asked if she thinks she made enough mistakes on her own to lose the election. That speaks volumes and robs the book of anything "noble" about it. It's just a bitter politician who thought the presidency was owed to her("it's her turn" was a slogan her staffers toyed with using), doing the cliche thing they all do which is say they aren't perfect(she does say she made some mistakes) before immediately passing the buck. Bernie. Obama. Russia. Comey. Social media. The mainstream media. White people. Racism. Sexism. Obama a second time(first for Russia, then over coal).

There isn't anything noble about the book.

That may be, and I'm not going to plant my flag defending a politician I don't mind but am not a huge advocate of. But I guess my point is, even if she does present it in a way that doesn't own up to her own failures, isn't it a valuable endeavor to, for example, examine whether or not sexism played a part in her media coverage and/or loss? Because, frankly, it probably did play a role. Or media coverage in general, regardless of gender? Or various other factors. I think it does have merit. Maybe the book is an imperfect vehicle to spark that discussion, but it's a vehicle nonetheless.

Basically, "she's a whiny *****" seems like a worse response to me than trying to push past the double standards to mine her story for actual nuggets of societal wisdom.

Silent Master
Most of the media was on her side, so if sexism played a role it was to her advantage.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Should really have changed the the thread to:

"Does Hillary ruin my life?"

-Yes she does

-No, but I act like she does every day

Dude I love Hillary Clinton.

Digi
Originally posted by Silent Master
Most of the media was on her side, so if sexism played a role it was to her advantage.

In the electorate, is the more pertinent question. What you think about her media portrayal is largely going to be influenced by the outlets you follow.

And one might argue that even the response to her book would be more muted if it were from a man. Ignoring this as a factor is, imo, willful ignorance of certain unfortunate truths about our society.

Silent Master
Being able to argue something doesn't make it true, I mean one could make an argument that the reason she did as well as she did was because she was a woman.

Hillary's word isn't enough for me. if she wants me to believe something she needs to provide facts and not just speculation.

Sable
Originally posted by Silent Master
Being able to argue something doesn't make it true, I mean one could make an argument that the reason she did as well as she did was because she was a woman.

Hillary's word isn't enough for me. if she wants me to believe something she needs to provide facts and not just speculation.

Her word was enough for millions of people, it didn't matter how much she lied.

shiv
When a woman votes for a man is it sexist

Lestov16
Pied piper candidate. That is all that needs to be said

Surtur
Originally posted by Digi
But I guess my point is, even if she does present it in a way that doesn't own up to her own failures, isn't it a valuable endeavor to, for example, examine whether or not sexism played a part in her media coverage and/or loss?

No lol, I don't think it is valid when things are misrepresented. The role of sexism wasn't significant. Pretending it was just undermines any sexism that does occur here. It helps nobody and gives no real insight.



It has merit depending on how you come at it. When you delude yourself into thinking these things cost you the election as opposed to merely that they didn't help? The merit goes bye bye.



If she doesn't want to be said to be whining the key would be not to whine. This book could have been written in a way where she didn't blame everyone and everything.. She chose not to, and why? It's not because she cares. She is desperate because she knows at this point her legacy will mainly be that she lost to Donald Trump. So she desperately wants to spin this in any way possible to make it seem like that is not the case. Russia did it, Comey did it. Sexism did it. The man in the moon did it.

Patient_Leech
Is Sable spamming this forum with the same uninteresting crap over and over again?

Poll:

Yes
or
Yes

Digi
Originally posted by Silent Master
Being able to argue something doesn't make it true, I mean one could make an argument that the reason she did as well as she did was because she was a woman.

You could?! Pray, tell. Any polling I saw about the role of gender on the election had it as an unequivocal negative for her.

Originally posted by Surtur
No lol, I don't think it is valid when things are misrepresented. The role of sexism wasn't significant. Pretending it was just undermines any sexism that does occur here. It helps nobody and gives no real insight.

Ok, so here's where we disagree. A non-trivial portion of the electorate was reticent - if not outright against - voting for a woman for the nation's highest office. There's also data to suggest that we hold men and women to a different standard when it comes to things like public displays of anger, which plays into things like the debate and even post-mortem book tours.

The polling we had immediately surrounding the Comey stuff is also targeted to a degree where we can be fairly certain that it had a significant affect on voters. Sexism might be harder to test for empirically (though not impossible), but the Comey stuff was very, very obvious as a major influencing factor. There's a reasonable argument to be made that if he waits a couple more weeks to go public, we have a different President right now.

So we disagree on this. I think these things did have an affect. Potentially a profound one, especially given how close the election was.

Digi
Here's a good summation of my Comey point above:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

And here's a decent aggregate of information on the gender issue:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/fear-of-a-female-president/497564/
...the polling breakdowns between men and women bear some of this out, imo, though it's admittedly hard to identify precise reasons for demographic differences.

Sable
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Is Sable spamming this forum with the same uninteresting crap over and over again?

Poll:

Yes
or
Yes

If its uninteresting crap why do you come here to post in uninteresting threads?

Foxsteak
Yay im not the only one who picked yes

Silent Master
Originally posted by Digi
You could?! Pray, tell. Any polling I saw about the role of gender on the election had it as an unequivocal negative for her.

A lot of polls also had Hillary winning, we saw how that turned out.

Surtur
Originally posted by Digi
Ok, so here's where we disagree. A non-trivial portion of the electorate was reticent - if not outright against - voting for a woman for the nation's highest office. There's also data to suggest that we hold men and women to a different standard when it comes to things like public displays of anger, which plays into things like the debate and even post-mortem book tours.

The polling we had immediately surrounding the Comey stuff is also targeted to a degree where we can be fairly certain that it had a significant affect on voters. Sexism might be harder to test for empirically (though not impossible), but the Comey stuff was very, very obvious as a major influencing factor. There's a reasonable argument to be made that if he waits a couple more weeks to go public, we have a different President right now.

So we disagree on this. I think these things did have an affect. Potentially a profound one, especially given how close the election was.

And the polling also said Trump would lose and he didn't, so I take it with a grain of salt. It ultimately came down to just Hilary.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Digi
I mean, maybe, but what good is he answer to the title's question? Ostensibly, in her book she talks about varying factors that led to her loss. Sure, maybe it's sour grapes, but analysis of the past - especially when the consensus opinion was wrong - is a noble endeavor, and she had a front-row seat.

From some of what I've heard - at least the only sources I can find not just trying to tell her to shut up for whatever reason - there's some genuine substance beneath the parts that are upsetting people. Past the "Hilary blames Bernie!" clickbait titles, and many similar clickbait titles, is an actual list of factors that, in some capacity, did lose her a winnable election, and likely some nuance to arguments like "Hillary blames Bernie!" that actually have merit and aren't just the ramblings of an also-ran.

As a rule, I'm not a fan of politicians and how they try to spin their own stories. But that doesn't mean their viewpoint should be ignored. And there's clearly an audience for her message - if only to feel smugly condescending toward it (which, let's be honest, sells as well as anything). So... /srug I believe she lost because she's just fundamentally unlovable. I wonder if that's in her book.

p4AoAX-oOZg

Surtur
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I believe she lost because she's just fundamentally unlovable. I wonder if that's in her book.

p4AoAX-oOZg

And perhaps she got a little cocky due to the...polls lol. We treat them as gospel, but they aren't.

Sable
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I believe she lost because she's just fundamentally unlovable. I wonder if that's in her book.

p4AoAX-oOZg

Whats odd is many can't, won't or refuse to admit that.

Digi
Originally posted by Surtur
And the polling also said Trump would lose and he didn't, so I take it with a grain of salt. It ultimately came down to just Hilary.

Again, I disagree. That Comey article I linked, for instance, I think makes a pretty strong case that you're wrong. And that's just one factor.

Also, "lol the polls were wrong" is too generalized. Did you know Hillary actually beat her polls in several states? There's a wealth of information in polling - and frankly decades of evidence for the sexism thing if I really can't convince you on the election specifically - but we turn polls into a binary thing. It's inherently probabilistic. So, like, a candidate with a 60% chance to win, we'd expect to lose 40% of the time. And if they don't win ~40% of the time, something is wrong with the polling model. It's like a football spread. But that's not how they're treated.

Polls also favored Hillary, but most looked at them nationally (where, let's remember, she did win the popular vote; polling was actually very accurate in that sense), rather than breaking them down by state and region, where the results are far less surprising. Some of those were off as well, but it was much closer to margin of error, or well within it. So the process - and the results we can glean - aren't invalid when properly understood.

Originally posted by Sable
If its uninteresting crap why do you come here to post in uninteresting threads?

To elevate the discussion, maybe, by criticizing your methods? Be real: some of your threads are sh*t, the KMC answer to clickbait trivia masquerading as real news.

/srug

Sable
Anyone who can listen to more than two words out of her mouth deserves an award.

Afro Cheese
It's not that odd. And watch the damn SNL video. That was the punchline to my post.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Digi
Again, I disagree. That Comey article I linked, for instance, I think makes a pretty strong case that you're wrong. And that's just one factor.

Also, "lol the polls were wrong" is too generalized. Did you know Hillary actually beat her polls in several states? There's a wealth of information in polling - and frankly decades of evidence for the sexism thing if I really can't convince you on the election specifically - but we turn polls into a binary thing. It's inherently probabilistic. So, like, a candidate with a 60% chance to win, we'd expect to lose 40% of the time. And if they don't win ~40% of the time, something is wrong with the polling model. It's like a football spread. But that's not how they're treated.

Polls also favored Hillary, but most looked at them nationally (where, let's remember, she did win the popular vote; polling was actually very accurate in that sense), rather than breaking them down by state and region, where the results are far less surprising. Some of those were off as well, but it was much closer to margin of error, or well within it. So the process - and the results we can glean - aren't invalid when properly understood. I agree with you about polls. I don't know what you're referencing with the sexism thing though.

I feel like the people who would vote against a president cause she's a woman are probably already going to vote Republican. So sexism really seems irrelevant to me. I think she straddles herself to the female gender so that a loss for Hillary is a loss for women because people don't really like Hillary but they do like women. I also think that being a woman is part of what got her the nomination in the first place. So rather than see all of this as signs of progress, because she didn't win it's obviously just sexism. I feel like that is just refusing to accept failure, and it's frankly pathetic.

Surtur
Originally posted by Digi
Again, I disagree. That Comey article I linked, for instance, I think makes a pretty strong case that you're wrong. And that's just one factor.

I really don't think any article you posted showed that Hilary didn't lose this mostly because of herself.



I won't say the sexism and other things didn't play a role, I just think the majority of the responsibility still falls upon Clinton's shoulders.

Sable
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
It's not that odd. And watch the damn SNL video. That was the punchline to my post.

laughing out loudthumb up

Silent Master
I'd like to see these polls that state that the only reason some people didn't vote for her was because she was a woman.

Afro Cheese
It's funny cause in 2008, I would have thought it was more likely that a woman could become president than a black person. That was just the way it seemed to me. And I don't necessarily think I was wrong, tbh. I think Obama's victory said more about Obama and his successful campaign than it did about race relations in the United States. Obviously it says something about race relations, relative to where we were before. But I think there were a number of other factors at play that were more relevant. 8 years of Bush, the Iraq war, etc. People were waiting for an articulate democratic alternative to the neo-cons, and it just so happened that Obama was the one. But a white guy (or girl) could've carried that election as well. Now, after 8 years of democratic rule, it's inherently less likely that a democrat would've won, whether they were a woman or not.

So, what the democrats are basically doing is saying ok we got a black guy in there, now it's time for a woman. And if you don't vote her in? Sexism. It's simple shaming and identity politics.

The lesson we should've taken from having the first black president is that we are evolving as a country and making some progress. The message that the political parties have taken from it is that identity politics works, and they need to start looking for black, women, etc candidates. This manifested itself noticeably in the Republican primaries since Obama was elected with candidates like Cain, Bachman, Carson, Fiorina, Rubio, etc... they just haven't ended up handing the nomination to one of these candidates yet.

Silent Master
There is also the question of how many people that voted for her, did so at least partially because she was a woman.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Silent Master
There is also the question of how many people that voted for her, did so at least partially because she was a woman.
thumb up

Surtur
Did people see she referred to herself as "Paula Revere" in terms of the Russians? Lol.

vansonbee
https://i.imgur.com/r1AlowF.png

Digi
Originally posted by Surtur
I really don't think any article you posted showed that Hilary didn't lose this mostly because of herself.

I won't say the sexism and other things didn't play a role, I just think the majority of the responsibility still falls upon Clinton's shoulders.

Have you read it? I know it's long, but if we're having this debate, it would be nice to have a shared reference here.

But let's step back, because I do think you have a point. I just think you're ignoring an equally valid point as a result. Early in the article, it says that its focus on the Comey letter shouldn't excuse the mistakes Hillary did make. But then it goes on to make an excellent case for the idea that the Comey letter cost her the election. Frankly, it's way more thorough than "nah, it was her" which is the gist of what I'm getting from you. You don't have to agree with me, but don't expect any capitulation to your opinion when it lacks the same intellectual rigor.

And the article is also part of a 10-part series, detailing in exacting detail what actually happened in the election, focusing on various influential factors like, yes, the Comey Letter. Here's the full series:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-real-story-of-2016/
This goes back to my point in that other thread (about Twitter?), about how full, long-form information and nuance is f---ing important. It's likely that the series also talks about some of the mistakes you are alluding to, like how her electoral college strategy was worse than Trump's.

But you seem to be throwing out the Comey letter because of some nebulous "it's her fault" argument that there are few specifics for.

And that can be true of any of these arguments (Bernie, sexism, media coverage, etc.) because of the razor-thin margin of this election, where even small factors can and probably did affect the outcome.

Or we can b*tch about a candidate we dislike and use reductionist arguments to ignore the reality of a situation. Granted, Surtur, you're not the most guilty of that sort of thing. I appreciate you engaging me here. But it's frustrating when no discussion is actually a discussion, especially when we have the data to make it one. /srug

Digi
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I agree with you about polls. I don't know what you're referencing with the sexism thing though.

I feel like the people who would vote against a president cause she's a woman are probably already going to vote Republican. So sexism really seems irrelevant to me. I think she straddles herself to the female gender so that a loss for Hillary is a loss for women because people don't really like Hillary but they do like women. I also think that being a woman is part of what got her the nomination in the first place. So rather than see all of this as signs of progress, because she didn't win it's obviously just sexism. I feel like that is just refusing to accept failure, and it's frankly pathetic.

You're underestimating undecided voters, those who voted for Obama last election, then Trump this election. The country does not exist in a partisan bubble of easy categories. Given the historic unpopularity of both candidates, there were a larger number of these than usual. Most polling models didn't account for enough of these undecideds, which swung disproportionately toward Trump, and is why many polls tended to be off.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-invisible-undecided-voter/

For such voters, the stuff Hillary talks about really mattered.

Originally posted by Silent Master
There is also the question of how many people that voted for her, did so at least partially because she was a woman.

Lol, sure, but that's a question, not a point that should be taken seriously until it's backed up. There was a historic gender gap in this election, and even Obama did better in most states with women than Hillary. And there was only a 1% uptick in turnout among women voters compared to the last election. Basically, she didn't galvanize women in a way that would seem to offset some of the negative factors. There's depressingly stories out there (some anecdotal, but still relevant) of women saying a woman is less fit for office than a man. I'll grant that those women were likely going to be Trump voters anyway. But it's concrete evidence of this type of sexism existing. The Atlantic article I linked earlier, while not a 1:1 comparison to the election, also details this admirably. Data is imperfect here, but everything we do have points to gender as a negative role for her in various demographics.

Silent Master
Can we get link to these polls that prove sexism cost Hillary the election?

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Digi
You're underestimating undecided voters, those who voted for Obama last election, Trump this election. The country does not exist in a partisan bubble of easy categories. Given the historic unpopularity of both candidates, there were a larger number of these than usual. Most polling models didn't account for enough of these undecideds, which swung disproportionately toward Trump, and is why many polls tended to be off.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-invisible-undecided-voter/

For such voters, the stuff Hillary talks about really mattered.So it was the Obama voters that turned Trump voters who were the sexists? Or am I misunderstanding you?



Wait... I would've thought her failing to galvanize women the way people expected would be an indication that it wasn't about sex after all.. perhaps they didn't buy into her as the face of women or perhaps they didn't want that woman to be their "Obama." Or, God forbid, perhaps they decided to vote based on their political beliefs rather than identity politics. But you're saying instead that those women were just being sexist?

Digi
Originally posted by Silent Master
Can we get link to these polls that prove sexism cost Hillary the election?

That's not a point I've made in this entire thread. I've even gone out of my way to describe how a variety of factors likely influenced the outcome, and that the discussion has to be more nuanced than this false binary in order to have any merit. Please at least try to meet me in the middle on the arguments I'm making before I'll take you seriously.

Silent Master
Ok, then how about links to the polls that prove how much of a role sexism played.

Digi
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
So it was the Obama voters that turned Trump voters who were the sexists? Or am I misunderstanding you?

A bit. This was in direct response to the idea that those to whom these factors would matter were already Republicans. I was probably taking it to a more broad point than just sexism, but I think it applies to sexism somewhat, yes.

So like, I think the Comey letter had a more profound impact than sexism, due to its timing and various other factors highligted in earlier links. But I'm also not ready to discount sexism as a factor, because, well, I've seen society. Sexism exists. You can't put a number on it, just like we can't put a number on much of this. Because it's a system with tons of variables.

I also am of the mind that, for example, the fact that Trump's "grab her by the p*ssy" news cycle didn't cost him the election is strong evidence for the acceptance of mysogyny. Or the double standard we have for her concerning her book.

So, gun to my head and being asked "Did sexism cost her the election?" I'd have to respond that I have no idea. Because there as also the Comey letter, the information war that Russia maybe (likely?) helped with, the press coverage that blew up the email story to ridiculous proportions, the historic pendulum swing that is the White House (it's very hard for a party to hold the WH for more than 8 years), a sub-optimal Electoral strategy on Clinton's part, and numerous others I'm forgetting. And, coincidentally, those are all reasons Hillary cites as well. But do I think sexism was one factor among many.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Wait... I would've thought her failing to galvanize women the way people expected would be an indication that it wasn't about sex after all.. perhaps they didn't buy into her as the face of women or perhaps they didn't want that woman to be their "Obama." Or, God forbid, perhaps they decided to vote based on their political beliefs rather than identity politics. But you're saying instead that those women were just being sexist?

Perhaps. It's notoriously hard data to parse for such nebulous things, even when we can parse the demographic information and polling quite closely . But I think to dismiss it out of hand is irresponsible, and that we definitely have reasons to believe it played a factor.

Sable
It's easy to blame sexism. It's a lot harder to blame a candidate who can't accept responsibility

Digi
Originally posted by Sable
It's easy to blame sexism. It's a lot harder to blame a candidate who can't accept responsibility

Maybe? From the vitriol in this thread, I'd say the opposite. But it's not about blame. Blame is petty, grade-school nonsense. This should be about understanding this stuff on a level that goes beyond name-calling, where we can actually find takeaways about our elections, our society and culture.

So fault Hillary for her tone if you want. I couldn't care less about that. Also feel free to fault her for some tone-deaf public comments, a bad electoral college strategy, and maybe other specific instances that hurt her. But mind at least some of her content. Because when I read through the list of things she "blames," many of which I listed in my last post and have referenced numerous times, I'm struck by how many are actually important factors, by how many actually mattered (or "probably" mattered, if we want to be more cautious).

Silent Master
How many votes do you think being a woman cost Hillary?

Surtur
Originally posted by Silent Master
Ok, then how about links to the polls that prove how much of a role sexism played.

Have you ever been listening to the radio or watching a news broadcast or something on tv and you hear a poll about Americans and think "Hey, I remember being polled for that" ?

I don't recall that ever having happened to me. Who do they poll? How many? What parts of the country? How reliably can we say they are not lying? These things matter.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Digi
A bit. This was in direct response to the idea that those to whom these factors would matter were already Republicans. I was probably taking it to a more broad point than just sexism, but I think it applies to sexism somewhat, yes.You can see why this is a somewhat strange idea though, no? Presumably, the swing voters who had voted Obama previously were the more liberal brand of Trump voters. Also... weren't they largely from places like the rust belt that Trump was preaching to about bringing back their jobs from overseas?

I started reading that link but it just seems like some chat convo between a bunch of bloggers and seems pretty long. Maybe give me the gist of what it says that is relevant.

As for Comey's letter, I could see it having an impact. It wasn't the first time Comey acted out of place, though. Didn't he also essentially announce that she wouldn't be prosecuted when that wasn't his job to do so? Either way, at least now we can all be grateful that James Comey has been fired stick out tongue

Eh. I think it's evidence that this scandal wasn't enough to cost him the election. I see that quote as basically him bragging about being a womanizer. Many on the left portray it as him openly boasting about rape. I suppose it depends on which interpretation you take.

What about her having seizures and shit like that? Honestly, there was a wide range of issues with Hillary. Trump was a shit candidate and so was Hillary, but the pendulum just happened to have swung in Trump's favor. They are both pretty deplorable people though.



I started reading the second article... once again it's pretty damn long so I quit about halfway through. There's some interesting studies and shit in there... but my issue is basically that since you can prove sexism exists, then any time a woman doesn't get a job or doesn't win the election then you can basically assume sexism played a major role. And that just seems very convenient for me...

I have to admit though, I laughed at this part:
laughing out loud

Also, I think a lot of people resented Hillary's campaign because she was endlessly sanctimonious and obnoxious about it. She would always come out with some "I'm a woman, wouldn't it be great to see a woman, women women women" shit. When Obama was running, he didn't really do that. He let the fact that he was black speak for himself, and spent most of his time talking about actual issues. Hillary just went all in on the identity politics angle. And we were reaching a point where that sort of PC shit was reaching its apex and a lot of people were starting to reject it and go in the other direction openly. That's basically the wave that I think Trump rode. Hillary was the complete opposite. A career politician, endlessly corrupt, soulless globalist. As your article says in the beginning... "she was a very conventional candidate." The populism of the 2016 elections was a rebuke of said conventionalism. The leftists TRIED to get their own radical outsider in there (Bernie) but he was sabotaged and outmaneuvered by Clinton.

Another thing that was interesting in 2016, is the primaries. The democrats got the first black president in, so they figured in 2016 it was a woman's turn. This is pretty evident when you look at the primaries: 5 white guys vs Clinton. Where as the Republicans actually had a much more diverse group. Two latinos, one woman, one orange man, one repitilian(Bush), one member of a barber shop quartet, one fat new jersey mobster, a black guy, etc. Clearly, they've completely bought into identity politics as well.

Surtur
I feel like if Hilary herself wasn't so toxic she could have weathered sexism and all that.

They hilariously chose the worst possible candidate to beat Trump. It's almost like she was specifically created in some lab somewhere to be the perfect being to lose to Trump.

It is why it's kinda funny, she is going to be remembered mainly for losing to Trump and the bitterness that followed. Obama will at least have "first black president". It's an achievement. Hilary? Well, she has her Chardonnay I suppose.

shiv
https://qz.com/833003/election-2016-all-women-voted-overwhelmingly-for-clinton-except-the-white-ones/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/white-women-donald-trump-victory

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-couldnt-win-over-white-women/


Digi how was sexism a factor in play


Re: Women Voting for Trump

Digi

cdtm
Originally posted by Sable
This woman can't get over it. Accused Trump during the election of refusing to accept the results. Which she clearly still has not accepted the results. So the fair question is, Is she a sore loser?

Don't know about sore, but she's definitely a loser.

cdtm
And of course it was about race. I remember reading that well.

They were blaming white women for going against their sex, which has to be one of the most anti-feminist lines from a supposedly feminist movement.

Oh my god, a woman might vote Republican!

shiv
Not included in any of the charts or numbers is:

Democrats (f) registered to vote who did not support Hillary with their vote.

Democrat (f) absentee voters

(some of whom were women who supported Sanders (m) in the primaries)



Macy Smit was very clear why she could not support the (f) Democrat Presidential Candidate with her vote:

"Hillary Clinton's niece is an avid Trump supporter who says her 'selfish' aunt only wants to win the election to become the first female president"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3902038/Hillary-Clinton-s-niece-avid-Trump-supporter-says-selfish-aunt-wants-win-female-president.html#ixzz4tGdfFT3i

I bet you a lifetime supply of free range chicken legs theres not a glimmer of a ghost of reflection on that in hillary's book


btw:

" I just think it's a little weird how strongly y'all are trying to refute the presence of sexism when, like, we live in an American where Donald "Grab her by the p*ssy" Trump is President."


Is this what people think he does did:

'hey that person accross the street... leap over 5 cars like batroc.... grab em by the p*ssy... Oh Yeah!

Digi
Lots of talk about polls in this thread. Here's an excellent article that just came out to today that elaborates on a lot of the points I've made in regard to polling, and more broadly in regard to uncertainty in predictions, and how we do a poor job understanding, interpreting and communicating it:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-media-has-a-probability-problem/
...it's a bit tangential to the main topic of this thread, but is still very relevant to the overall conversation.

This has implications for things like hurricane forecasts too, as they discuss in the early paragraphs, before turning back to the election.

I've used this analogy before, but think of betting spreads for sports. You'd expect a 4-point underdog in football to win ~30% of the time, and would be surprised if maybe 10 games were played and zero underdogs won. And election predictions are kind of like that. But we reward "right" instead of "accurate" which can be problematic. So for example, the Macron win in France was correctly predicted, but the polls ended up being about 10 points off. So the polls were actually wildly, irresponsibly less accurate than for Trump/Clinton (no one who was that far off in their Trump/Clinton numbers has a job anymore). But it was "right," so there's no backlash. More alarmingly, though I've lost the source, I think national polling was off more in 2012 than 2016. Obama just had a bigger lead and had more secure electoral-college-specific numbers. And that's despite the fact that there were less undecided voters, and thus less uncertainty in polling models.

So this fundamental misunderstanding leads to all sorts of problems with media coverage and, potentially, voter turnout. it's a good read if you plan on discussing anything poll related with anyone, ever.

snowdragon
This describes much of the our culture not just news, irrational exuberance and the internet combined with confirmation bias.

Afro Cheese
I don't doubt that... but again this seems like a flimsy reason to say that sexism was one of the major driving forces behind the swing from Obama to Trump in these areas.

As you said... racism is there, yet apparently that didn't stop Obama. And since one of Trump's core messages was speaking directly to people who's jobs had been shipped overseas, it seems there is plenty reason to suspect that he appealed to these people primarily for reasons other than his gender.

I'm reminded of a documentary I was watching prior to the election about Trump country in the Carolinas... which I know is not the rust belt but they face very similar problems (and, tbh are probably even more overtly racist and sexist than the rust belt areas are).
ezvBs9SYxIY

I don't even disagree with that. I just think she is going to prioritize certain factors above others to make herself look better. She's a politician. And seeing that her sex was one of the major draws that launched her nomination in ther first place, it just seems like sour grapes to say sexism is also why she lost. If she had won, she'd be saying it's cause America is choosing to see past sexism etc. It just reads like an emotionally driven tactic to shame people into voting for mediocre candidates based on identity politics.

I don't know if you are serious, lol. I know it's a cliche but have you ever been in a men's locker room before? Or better yet, just around a group of working-class men in general? I know for a Presidential candidate, it's definitely not a good look. But at the time of the taping, he was just a reality tv star/real estate mogul. He was bragging to a friend/associate of his about the lifestyle he enjoyed. His wording was old mannish and creepy af. But it was hardly sociopathic. There's a reason that tape never leaked until weeks before the election... prior to him getting into the race for prez, that story would've barely cracked the tabloid magazines. It's only valuable cause now, years later he's in such a high position.


1) I would like to see the evidence that it didn't hurt him. Not that I doubt you, I am just surprised. As at the time, it seemed like it was really hurting him a lot. A shit load of republican politicians started to bail on him etc. I was pretty much convinced he lost with that scandal.

2) It certainly says something about Trump voters in particular, but I think the way you are framing it is only one possible way of doing so. It seems to me that there have been scandal after scandal that Trump endured that would've sunk the ordinary politician.

Saying McCain was a war hero cause "he got caught laughing out loud", making fun of some disabled reporter, etc. I think Trump fans thrived on his dont give a **** attitude and anti PC demeanor. And, personally, I really don't feel that quote should disqualify someone from being prez. Not because I don't like women, but because I can forgive him for saying something dumb on a hot mic.
I'm not dismissing the existence of sexism. I'm not even ruling out that sexism could've affected the election. I'm just not going along with this kind of thinking:

a) Sexism exists
b) Hillary lost
Because sexism exists and hillary lost, c) sexism played a role in hillary losing.

Because we could've done the same thing if Obama lost with racism. But he happened to win.

My major problem with Clinton, as I mentioned in my previous post, was that she sort of used that shaming tactic as part of her campaign. She basically made it clear that a "vote for her is a vote for women." And exactly who the **** is she to declare that? Like I said, Barrack was smart enough not to play that game, and he was successful.

lol... No, obviously no politician is going to come out and campaign on the premise of "It's my turn." It was just sort of obvious to everybody who watched the 2008 elections and the following democratic administration, that Hillary was next up to bat. There are a variety of reasons why this was so. Mainly, because she had been gunning for the whitehouse for a very long time and Obama is basically the reason she didn't get her dream in 2008. So she joined the team.

I voted for Obama, btw. And even when I was a democrat I knew Hillary was next up to bat. But it is also perfect for the identity politics angle for the dems to get the first Black president followed directly by the first woman president. So no, I really don't buy that her being a woman held her back, overall. It was her main advantage. That's not to say that there were no people for whom a woman prez rubbed them the wrong way... but all in all I still think her gender was a net benefit for her in this race. Like I said it was her vs 5 white guys in the democratic primaries. Isn't is a bit strange to you that the republican primaries were vastly more diverse than the democratic primaries in 2016?

As for your last thing about "if she was a man..." I believe you're wrong once more. If the same basic storyline happened but she was a man, people would still be saying that it was his turn. This reminded me of in one of your articles where they compared her writing a book to Al Gore making a movie and were like "nobody seemed to have a problem with that." As if that's more evidence of sexism. Where as, she wrote a book about her losing the election. Has anyone else done that? I'm seriously curious. On the other hand, Al Gore did a movie on global warming.

Surtur

Surtur

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.