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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by DigiI believe she lost because she's just fundamentally unlovable. I wonder if that's in her book.
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
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I believe she lost because she's just fundamentally unlovable. I wonder if that's in her book.
And perhaps she got a little cocky due to the...polls lol. We treat them as gospel, but they aren't.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I believe she lost because she's just fundamentally unlovable. I wonder if that's in her book.
Whats odd is many can't, won't or refuse to admit that.
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
Originally posted by DigiI agree with you about polls. I don't know what you're referencing with the sexism thing though.
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 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.