KillerMovies - Movies That Matter!

REGISTER HERE TO JOIN IN! - It's easy and it's free!
Home » Community » General Discussion Forum » Is Hillary Clinton a Sore Loser?

Is Hillary Clinton a Sore Loser?
You do not have permission to vote on this poll.
Yes 10 83.33%
Yes 2 16.67%
Total: 12 votes 100%
  [Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Is Hillary Clinton a Sore Loser?
Started by: Sable

Forum Jump:
Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (4): « First ... « 2 3 [4]   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread
Surtur
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Chicago

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.

Old Post Sep 20th, 2017 09:30 PM
Surtur is online now! Click here to Send Surtur a Private Message Find more posts by Surtur Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
shiv
Spirit of Tengu

Gender: Male
Location: Tokyo City

Old Post Sep 20th, 2017 09:38 PM
shiv is currently offline Click here to Send shiv a Private Message Find more posts by shiv Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Digi
Forum Leader

Gender: Unspecified
Location:

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.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
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 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.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
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.


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."

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
As for Comey's letter, I could see it having an impact.


No, it did have an impact. Period.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
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.


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.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
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...


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.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
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.


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.


__________________

Old Post Sep 20th, 2017 11:09 PM
Digi is currently offline Click here to Send Digi a Private Message Find more posts by Digi Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
cdtm
@#$%

Gender: Unspecified
Location: United States

Re: Is Hillary Clinton a Sore Loser?

quote: (post)
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.


__________________

Old Post Sep 21st, 2017 12:19 AM
cdtm is online now! Click here to Send cdtm a Private Message Find more posts by cdtm Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
cdtm
@#$%

Gender: Unspecified
Location: United States

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!


__________________

Old Post Sep 21st, 2017 12:33 AM
cdtm is online now! Click here to Send cdtm a Private Message Find more posts by cdtm Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
shiv
Spirit of Tengu

Gender: Male
Location: Tokyo City

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/art...l#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!

Last edited by shiv on Sep 21st, 2017 at 02:10 AM

Old Post Sep 21st, 2017 01:59 AM
shiv is currently offline Click here to Send shiv a Private Message Find more posts by shiv Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Digi
Forum Leader

Gender: Unspecified
Location:

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.


__________________

Last edited by Digi on Sep 21st, 2017 at 01:15 PM

Old Post Sep 21st, 2017 01:12 PM
Digi is currently offline Click here to Send Digi a Private Message Find more posts by Digi Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
snowdragon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Somewhere in time

quote:
One can understand why news organizations find “the narrative” so tempting. The world is a complicated place, and journalists are expected to write authoritatively about it under deadline pressure. There’s a management consulting adage that says when creating a product, you can pick any two of these three objectives: 1. fast, 2. good and 3. cheap. You can never have all three at once. The equivalent in journalism is that a story can be 1. fast, 2. interesting and/or 3. true — two out of the three — but it’s hard for it to be all three at the same time.


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

Old Post Sep 21st, 2017 01:43 PM
snowdragon is currently offline Click here to Send snowdragon a Private Message Find more posts by snowdragon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Afro Cheese
Senior Member

Gender: Unspecified
Location:

quote:
Originally posted by Digi

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.
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).



quote:
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.
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.

quote:
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.
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.

quote:
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.

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.
quote:
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.
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.

quote:
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.
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.

Old Post Sep 21st, 2017 07:10 PM
Afro Cheese is currently offline Click here to Send Afro Cheese a Private Message Find more posts by Afro Cheese Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Surtur
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Chicago

"It's her turn" was something some staffers did toy with as a slogan. So yeah, that right there is a big No. It was never her turn. Nor will it ever be.

More funny though, this is how clueless she is:

Hillary Clinton says female Trump supporters ‘disrespect themselves’ — then they hit back

It's like she has a disease that removes every single ounce of self awareness.


__________________
But we all got a Chicken-Duck-Woman thing waiting for us.

Old Post Sep 24th, 2017 10:15 PM
Surtur is online now! Click here to Send Surtur a Private Message Find more posts by Surtur Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Surtur
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Chicago

Lol, more excuses, love it:

Why Hillary Clinton was right about white women – and their husbands

"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."

laughing

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 thumb up


__________________
But we all got a Chicken-Duck-Woman thing waiting for us.

Old Post Sep 25th, 2017 02:56 PM
Surtur is online now! Click here to Send Surtur a Private Message Find more posts by Surtur Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
All times are UTC. The time now is 02:21 AM.
Pages (4): « First ... « 2 3 [4]   Last Thread   Next Thread

Home » Community » General Discussion Forum » Is Hillary Clinton a Sore Loser?

Email this Page
Subscribe to this Thread
   Post New Thread  Post A Reply

Forum Jump:
Search by user:
 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON

Text-only version
 

< - KillerMovies.com - Forum Archive - Forum Rules >


© Copyright 2000-2006, KillerMovies.com. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by: vBulletin, copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.