Is Hillary Clinton a Sore Loser?

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.

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 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.

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

😂👆

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

Originally posted by Digi
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.

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. Data is imperfect here, but everything we do have points to gender as a negative role for her in various demographics.

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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 😛

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.

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.

I have to admit though, I laughed at this part:

Black T-shirt depicting Trump as a biker and Clinton falling off the motorcycle’s back alongside the words if you can read this, the ***** fell off. Black T-shirt depicting Trump as a boxer having just knocked Clinton to the floor of the ring, where she lies faceup in a clingy tank top.

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.