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.
__________________ But we all got a Chicken-Duck-Woman thing waiting for us.
That Guardian article is more about race than gender. Here's a pull quote: The strong support for Trump among white women suggests that many of them, if not “overtly racist”, simply “don’t think racism is a big deal”, said Mikki Kendall, a feminist cultural critic.
“For them, it’s not real. They don’t have to worry about it, so you must be exaggerating. It’s Ivanka Trump [saying], ‘I’ve never had to deal with sexual harassment,’ and she’s only worked for her dad and companies she’s owned.”
...not saying I agree or disagree with that statement - there's a lot to unpack in it - but that's one of the biggest thrusts of the article.
The Quartz article is also only tangentially related to anything gender-related. The big takeaway for me was that the electorate divided more based on education levels than anything else, which is data I've seen reflected in other sources.
And...I linked to that 538 article. It's great for a lot of information. Taken together, the takeaway from those articles seems to be that she didn't get any kind of benefit from being a woman. Which doesn't exactly make my point, but it also doesn't refute it.
The Atlantic article I linked earlier probably comes the closest to codifying some of this in our institutional leanings. But it's not like other examples don't exist.
As mentioned like seven times now, though, these things exist in a system of variables that can be hard to separate, but undoubtedly have collective influence. 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.
It would help if you provided your interpretation, though. I'm not linking things in a vacuum; I'm describing how they apply to the points I'm making, which makes this conversation like 1000% easier to have.
I don't know where you're from. But I'm originally from the rust belt. My extended family is a wonderful little microcosm for the rust belt voter. The county I grew up in has shifted red in my lifetime about 10-15%. Sexism and racism are real there. It's not the only factors, mind you. But it's there.
But for that hypothetical individual, maybe it was the Comey letter. Maybe it was policy. That's my point. Several potential factors. But the things Hillary cites are all valid, possible (probable?) factors.
Basically, after parsing the election a dozen different ways, they took a look at Hillary's reasoning and basically emerged with a "yeah, she makes some decent points about influential election factors. The criticisms are mostly about her tone, and may be related to sexist double standards."
This is a somewhat disturbing dismissal of what I see as a horrific comment. I know womanizers. They're sh*theads. But they also don't brag to strangers about stuff like this. That's next level. People are fungible to Trump, in a way that's entirely sociopathic.
Do you disagree with my point, though, that the fact that this didn't really hurt him (polls before and after that week were fairly static) shows an indifference to misogyny? It seems somewhat obvious to me.
And my point is that this is a sh*t reason to dismiss sexism. No, we shouldn't engage in those slippery slope arguments you mention. This is why analyzing things is important, not just throwing it out as a cause or citing as a cause without reason.
As you say, though, some interesting studies. Studies that show institutional sexism in our culture. Which is my point.
Did Hillary ever use "It's my turn" or any variation thereof? Serious question. I'm curious whether this might be projection on the part of her detractors to make her seem more unlikable.
Because take gender out for a second. Hillary was 2nd in 2008 in the primaries. Obviously she'd be the front-runner to succeed Obama. That's how these things work. If it were a man in the same spot, I wonder if we'd be whining with the same "they figured it was his turn" rhetoric. My guess is no.
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/feature...bility-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.
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).
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 ", 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.
"Last week, Clinton, who has had a lifetime to contemplate the women’s vote, copped to having a theory. “[Women] will be under tremendous pressure – and I’m talking principally about white women. They will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl’,” she said in an interview as part of a tour promoting her new memoir of the 2016 campaign."
But wait, science backs it up. Social science. Pretty much concrete evidence thanks to one study. Oh, I tried to look at it, but you have to pay to do so lol. Perfect metaphor for Hilary. Top notch
__________________ But we all got a Chicken-Duck-Woman thing waiting for us.