Support NeoGAF

[dramatis]

I get what you're saying, but again- no one is debating that sexism exists. But sexists aren't the reason why clinton SPECIFICALLY did not get in. Trump got less votes than Romney, and less votes than McCain- but about the same number of republicans showed up as they always do to vote for the republican candidate.

there was no massive wave of sexists showing up to vote republican. it simply didn't happen. On the democratic end Hillary got the same votes john kerry did.

She failed to provide a convincing argument for 6-10 million DEMOCRATS that showed up for obama but didn't show up for Gore or Kerry to show up for her.

"sexism" isn't why.

The problem here is that while Hillary Clinton is part of the discussion, the article's main thrust isn't actually Hillary Clinton, the article's point is that women in general have difficulty in US politics.

But as with all matters tangentially related to Hillary Clinton, she becomes the focus of the subject—people complain that the media does this, but they in turn do it themselves!

The idea here isn't to assign blame, it's to examine an issue in our political system. There's plenty of railing against establishment...but not a peep against, and perhaps even defense of, the male establishment in politics.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

She didn't lose the election; she got more votes. She lost the republic's interpretation of the results.

 

[Zantetsuken]

Sexism is part of a chunk of reasons why she lost. It was indeed rampant.

Even more interesting that quite a few women voted for Trump.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Democrats can argue that she lost because she was a woman all they want, but that'll probably just leave them baffled again when they nominate another unlikeable candidate like Pence for the next election and lose.

 

[Manmademan]

I just couldn't believe (as a conservative) how many women voted for Hillary. After the Grab em by the pussy tapes emerged I was 100% sure that Trump lost, as he threw away the women and (earlier comments) Hispanic vote, both of which you need to win.

I was completely wrong though, 44% (I believe) of all voting women voted for Trump. To me that's just weird, I am pretty sure if any male or female candidate said something like "the only thing that is good about a man is his dick" he or she would be getting max 5-10% of the male vote.

Whats the old saying? Men forget but never forgive, women forgive but never forget. Felt kinda true here.

identity politics. republican women vote just like republican men. "Republican" is core to their identity and it's almost impossible to break that on either end of the gender divide.

The republican vote is extremely consistent every 4 years, with the exception of 00, which was EXTREMELY low turnout on both ends.

Bush 00: 50.4 million votes
Bush 04: 62 million votes
Mccain 08: 59 million votes
Romney 12: 60.9 million votes
Trump 16: 60.07 million votes.

Republicans will always turn out for the republican candidate no matter who is running or what their appeal is. They're voting for the platform, not the person. Those 4 candidates are all WILDLY different from each other in terms of resume, background, and appeal. But their votes (except 2000) are all identical.

Sexism is not why hillary lost.

 

[Slo]

I think there's an animalistic instinct in us to elect the alpha-male as leader, and all things being equal, we favor the male. This is especially true for people who don't have the.....processing power to override those instincts.

Not saying that its right, I'm just saying we share a lot of DNA with baboons.

 

[Mighty Chin]

Id say crazy relatives like Aunt Flo.

 

[StormKing]

I just couldn't believe (as a conservative) how many women voted for Hillary. After the Grab em by the pussy tapes emerged I was 100% sure that Trump lost, as he threw away the women and (earlier comments) Hispanic vote, both of which you need to win.

I was completely wrong though, 44% (I believe) of all voting women voted for Trump. To me that's just weird, I am pretty sure if any male or female candidate said something like "the only thing that is useful about a man is his dick" he or she would be getting max 5-10% of the male vote.

Whats the old saying? Men forget but never forgive, women forgive but never forget. Felt kinda true here.

Because although women did not like the "grab them by the pussy" comment, they did not believe that Trump hates women. That's why it was just a gaffe rather than an election death knell.

If Trump had said something like women are inferior to men and only exist to serve men or something of that nature, then that would be electoral poison.

 

[God Dayumm]

What country are these people living in that a black man named Barrack Hussein Obama has it easier than a blonde white woman named Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Women are underrepresentrd because it has been maybe 2-3 generations for most since women got the right to vote, less than 100 years. We are going to see a female US President this century.

I do think the glass ceiling is lower for white women than for non-white men. Of course they are the most privileged in everything else so the statement may seem weird, but a man like Obama can appeal even to racists while a woman will have a harder time. Call me crazy

And despite what the narrative here says, it is in STEM fields where women have the best opportunities. By far

 

[WiiredShawn]

The problem here is that while Hillary Clinton is part of the discussion, the article's main thrust isn't actually Hillary Clinton, the article's point is that women in general have difficulty in US politics.

But as with all matters tangentially related to Hillary Clinton, she becomes the focus of the subject—people complain that the media does this, but they in turn do it themselves!

The idea here isn't to assign blame, it's to examine an issue in our political system. There's plenty of railing against establishment...but not a peep against, and perhaps even defense of, the male establishment in politics.

You're right. There's two issues going on here: the difficulty for female politicians in general and the failure of Hillary Clinton to become president. It's easy to conflate the two, even though I don't think we should.

Perhaps the bigger point here is this: How difficult will it be for any woman who is not Hillary Clinton to become the president? She had so much stacked in her favor. She was highly educated, highly experienced, was married to a former president, was rich as shit, and was white. She had resources that most female politicians could only dream of. And she lost. Even if she lost for a multitude of other reasons unrelated to her gender, it's going to send a message: "Well, if Clinton couldn't do it, what the hell chance do I have?"

That's a problem and it's something we need to deal with.

 

[Finalizer]

She didn't lose because of being a woman.

She was a shit candidate. Almost anyone but her would have walked the election.

Thinking about it more, I've become dubious of the notion that she couldn't have very easily won the election in the slam dunk almost everyone had expected. The most damning problem was the insular, self-gratifying bubble that her campaign caught itself in reinforced by misleading poll data. I feel like all she needed was some sort of reach-out to the people in these states who felt ignored by Clinton's message and, unfortunately, put (misguided) economic self-interest above social justice. That isn't to say Clinton needed to discard that part of her campaign, just include something else in addition to reach out to the people in the Rust Belt that switched from Obama to Trump this election.

 

[dramatis]

What country are these people living in that a black man named Barrack Hussein Obama has it easier than a blonde white woman named Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Women are underrepresentrd because it has been maybe 2-3 generations for most since women got the right to vote, less than 100 years. We are going to see a female US President this century.

Women got the right to vote 52 years after black men did...

 

[Zok310]

To be fair in my generation we have not had any woman worth voting for. See the list below, why would I vote for anyone on that list?

To name a few,
Michele Bachmann
Carly Fiorina
Carol Moseley Braun
Hillary Rodham Clinton

 

[phanphare]

well this would be a bit more relevant if hillary lost because she's a woman. she didn't. if anything she lost because she's a clinton during an election cycle where the american public gave a big middle finger to establishment politics.

I do hope that sooner rather than later this hurdle will be overcome however and I do believe there's a couple good options for 2020

 

[everyday math]

Even more interesting that quite a few women voted for Trump.

Lots of woman did not like Hillary. They also didn't like that she was still married to someone like Bill. Who lets face it is very sleazy.

I know that sounds hypocritical to vote for someone like trump. It totally is. But when you add in religion and abortion...well it complicates things.

 

[tearsintherain]

Women also got a number of historical elections this year in the US, like the first Latina Senator elected (Nevada, my state), the first Somalian Muslim immigrant state legislature, the second (ever) female black US senator from California, the first openly lesbian governor (Oregon), and a whole bunch more. So good hopes for next cycles of elections, need more people like this entering the system and people like the Clinton's and the top DNC strategists exiting.
http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a40643/election-2016-women-winners/

 

[StormKing]

I think there's an animalistic instinct in us to elect the alpha-male as leader, and all things being equal, we favor the male. This is especially true for people who don't have the.....processing power to override those instincts.

Not saying that its right, I'm just saying we share a lot of DNA with baboons.

I think in imperialist nations of which America is definitely one, there is some preference for a strong male leader. I think this has to do with our adulation of the military and the fact that the military is mainly male.

However, this election was clearly winnable for Hilary Clinton despite this male preference. It was her arrogance and corruption that ultimately doomed her not her gender.

 

[ramparter]

Lol this isnt tbe reason Hillary didnt won though.

 

[phanphare]

Women also got a number of historical elections this year in the US, like the first Latina Senator elected (Nevada, my state), the first Somalian Muslim immigrant state legislature, the first indian/black US senator from California, the first openly lesbian governor (Oregon), and a whole bunch more
http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a40643/election-2016-women-winners/

yeah there were some good wins for progressives amidst the shit storm

 

[Kathian]

Women have to win an election just as men do. People will vote for the policies that benefit the most and against the politics that impact them the most.

A bigger issue in US politics is the lack of women and also the 'place' of women. Women are treated as props sometimes in US politics and honestly the 'First Lady's having an office and team is just bizarre and portrays them as not much more than the President's Wife.

We can see women can win primaries now; they can win the election with the right presentation and policies.

Rural working Class women however don't really care about the glass ceiling. Women working the shop floor don't care about the glass ceiling. Women have a lot of issues - the ability to be President is actually not a major one. So just don't make your ability to get the women vote out based on being a women - it'll make them dislike you and see you as self involved.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Wow, GAF totally turned on Hillary. I voted for her and still thinks she would be way better than Trump on every level.

 

[everyday math]

Wow, GAF totally turned on Hillary. I voted for her and still thinks she would be way better than Trump on every level.

You're not gonna find much disagreement that she's better then trump. I mean that's pretty obvious.

 

[Makki]

Wow, GAF totally turned on Hillary. I voted for her and still thinks she would be way better than Trump on every level.

Most of GAF would agree with your last statement. It doesnt mean Hillary wasn't without faults of her own, and in another timeline a better Democrat candidate with less questionable baggage would have won regardless of gender.

 

[Manmademan]

To be fair in my generation we have not had any woman worth voting for. See the list below, why would I vote for anyone on that list?

To name a few,
Michele Bachmann
Carly Fiorina
Carol Moseley Braun
Hillary Rodham Clinton

come the fuck on, man. this is stupid.

there are plenty of women politicians who have gotten elected at all levels that are "worth voting for."

none that hit the level of "presidential general election", but that's a tough bar to clear without a lot of money, and a lot of political connections to make that happen. Women have only really had parity with men in the workplace since the late 80s/early 90s.

the dead earliest you COULD have seen a viable female presidential candidate would have been 00 or 04.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I feel like these posts come in like clockwork. Like the discussion of gender and politics is literally impossible without some guy denying that gender has nothing to do with it. "It's about ethics in politics" etc.

On some level her gender did play a role in why she's not president. To which degree is the question. With that said, I don't think it was near the primary reason why she didn't win. Obama's election should've been a wakeup call for Democrats. He was without question the least qualified among those running that year in the two major parties. He was up against Biden, Clinton, McCain, Edwards etc. All people that had much more experience than he had. And all of them tried to use their qualifications as for why America shouldn't pick him. But the message that America sent that year to both parties was that just because you're most qualified for the job doesn't mean you're the best person for it.

Regardless of her qualifications, she's the embodiment of the establishment. Deeply entrenched in Washington and Wall Street. It's not what people wanted in 2008, it's not what people wanted in 2012, 2016 and it's not going to be what people want in 2020.

Another thing these recent elections have shown is that charisma and being able to make people enthusiastic about voting actually matters. One of the most telling things about Hillary is how much she spent off the trail and how much she sent people like the Obama's, Bernie and Warren out to speak in her place. Why? Because they had the ability to do what she can't. The problem however is that they weren't who people were voting for. They weren't casting a vote for a third Obama term, a first Bernie, Warren or Michelle term, they were ultimately voting on Hillary. And she failed time and time again to really make people enthusiastic about that prospect. Which is probably why she in part turned to using the fear of a Trump presidency to try to scare people into voting instead of inspiring them.

 

[gutter_trash]

the United States is a Conservative Right Wing nation.

compare it to other Western democracies, the United States is Far-Right falling off the cliff Right Wing

 

[GhaleonEB]

I don't think she lost because she is a woman.

If a white male ran an identical campaign, that person would be president-elect. And by a good margin.

 

[Manmademan]

On some level her gender did play a role in why she's not president. To which degree is the question. With that said, I don't think it was near the primary reason why she didn't win. Obama's election should've been a wakeup call for Democrats. He was without question the least qualified among those running that year in the two major parties. He was up against Biden, Clinton, McCain, Edwards etc. All people that had much more experience than he had. And all of them tried to use their qualifications as for why America shouldn't pick him. But the message that America sent that year to both parties. Just because you're most qualified for the job doesn't mean you're the best person for it.

Regardless of her qualifications, she's the embodiment of the establishment. Deeply entrenched in Washington and Wall Street. It's not what people wanted in 2008, it's not what people wanted in 2012, 2016 and it's not going to be what people want in 2020.

Another thing these recent elections have shown is that charisma and being able to make people enthusiastic about voting actually matters. One of the most telling things about Hillary is how much she spent off the trail and how much she sent people like the Obama's, Bernie and Warren out to speak in her place. Why? Because they had the ability to do what she can't. The problem however is that they weren't who people were voting for. They were casting a vote for a third Obama term, a first Bernie, Warren or Michelle term, they were ultimately voting on Hillary. And she failed time and time again to really make people enthusiastic about that prospect. Which is probably why she in part turned to using the fear of a Trump presidency to try to scare people into voting instead of inspiring them.

Best post in the thread so far.

If a white male ran an identical campaign, that person would be president-elect. And by a good margin.

Kerry ran the same damned campaign in 04, gained the same amount of votes and lost.

 

[everyday math]

On some level her gender did play a role in why she's not president. To which degree is the question. With that said, I don't think it was near the primary reason why she didn't win. Obama's election should've been a wakeup call for Democrats. He was without question the least qualified among those running that year in the two major parties. He was up against Biden, Clinton, McCain, Edwards etc. All people that had much more experience than he had. And all of them tried to use their qualifications as for why America shouldn't pick him. But the message that America sent that year to both parties. Just because you're most qualified for the job doesn't mean you're the best person for it.

Regardless of her qualifications, she's the embodiment of the establishment. Deeply entrenched in Washington and Wall Street. It's not what people wanted in 2008, it's not what people wanted in 2012, 2016 and it's not going to be what people want in 2020.

Another thing these recent elections have shown is that charisma and being able to make people enthusiastic about voting actually matters. One of the most telling things about Hillary is how much she spent off the trail and how much she sent people like the Obama's, Bernie and Warren out to speak in her place. Why? Because they had the ability to do what she can't. The problem however is that they weren't who people were voting for. They were casting a vote for a third Obama term, a first Bernie, Warren or Michelle term, they were ultimately voting on Hillary. And she failed time and time again to really make people enthusiastic about that prospect. Which is probably why she in part turned to using the fear of a Trump presidency to try to scare people into voting instead of inspiring them.

You so god damn right. People should go back and watch her last rally in philly. I remember watching The Obama's speeches and then watching Hillary. All I could think about was man....can we have Obama back?

 

[WiiredShawn]

Wow, GAF totally turned on Hillary. I voted for her and still thinks she would be way better than Trump on every level.

Some people are undoubtedly trying to save face by playing the "lol Hillary always sucked" angle. Some of them are just closet Trump supporters who feel safe on the forum now.

At the same time, her campaign absolutely deserves criticism. That's not about believing Trump is a better candidate. It's about recognizing she and her advisors let a victory slip away by making some poor strategic choices. If they don't know address the faults and prepare a better strategy next time, we'll be stuck with Trump another four years.

 

[black_13]

To become a politician you need to be able to be very tough, take criticism well, have a relatively clean history, be likable and be able to understand all kinds of people and get them to support you. While Hilary was tough, I think she lacked most of the other qualities. She and her staff got it in their head that because Trump was a crazy sounding person, she would automatically win.

 

[Future]

Probably a little bit of both her being a woman and running a bad campaign. Her biggest problem was not getting enough turnout in battleground states. She did win the popular vote, but her being a woman may have capped the amount of people willing to vote her

That said, more white women voted trump than Clinton as well. Unless women are shown to be sexist amongst themselves (which could be true a bit, honestly), that probably had more to do with what the candidates were saying rather than their sex

 

[WillyFive]

LOL.

If you think it's easier in the US to get by as a black man than a white woman, you may want to reevaluate your position a little.
.

It's a different type of struggle. White men for violent when blacks wanted to vote, but when women wanted to vote, those men simply laughed at their faces.

Both are bad.

 

[entremet]

Wow, GAF totally turned on Hillary. I voted for her and still thinks she would be way better than Trump on every level.

It's just that people that were critical of her are now able to speak without the dogpiles.

Moreover, the criticism is about her flawed campaign strategy that led to epic loss to dangerous mad man. People want to channel that frustration somewhere.

 

[hosannainexcelsis]

During the republican debates, Marco roboto said "if we make this election about qualification, Hilary would be the most electable"

I see. I didn't follow the debates very closely, so I missed that. What was the context of that statement? Did the other Republican candidates agree with him? And I guess we also have to clarify whether we are using "qualified" to mean "the longest resume with the most high-power positions" or "the most suitable; the person likely to perform the job the best". People's perspective on the latter could be quite different from their perspective on the former.

Anyway, I think laser focusing this election on the question of sexism is questionable when I haven't heard people say opposition to Jill Stein this year, or Sarah Palin when she was running for VP, was based primarily on sexism rather than disagreements about policy and concerns about character. You can say "but all those people are nothing alike" - which is mostly true, but it's for that very reason that people with different beliefs living in different environments can feel negatively towards different female politicians. Looking at demographics can be valuable, but we have to resist the temptation to boil down all of humanity to a single demographic factor as if that is the sole motivating factor for people's actions.

You so god damn right. People should go back and watch her last rally in philly. I remember watching The Obama's speeches and then watching Hillary. All I could think about was man....can we have Obama back?

Speaking of Clinton's last Philadelphia rally, my brother was there and in the wake of the election I can't stop thinking about what he said about it. Clinton had brought in Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen as the musical guests, and the audience was mostly marked by the older whites you'd expect to be drawn in by those artists. My brother told me he was surprised at how little the makeup of Clinton's rally reflected the makeup of Philadelphia as a whole - primarily in the rally being conspicuously lacking in blacks. In retrospect, I can see signs of Clinton's defeat right there.

 

[Keri]

If a Black man with a Muslim sounding name can get elected twice anythings possible.

Except a woman who wants to continue his policies, getting elected.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

I don't think she lost because she is a woman.

Yes she did...

 

[Cyndra]

People who think she lost because of her gender are putting blinders on to the fact she was just a terrible candidate who ran a poor campaign.

 

[Boney]

I'd love to know the % of women elected in office at a local level when they do run.

Would clear the picture if it's more of the parties not allowing them to run or the voters not choosing them.

 

[entremet]

Except a woman who wants to continue his policies, getting elected.

Except she never communicated those well enough.

I mostly got "I'm with Her" and "Not Trump".

And we should know by now that policies alone don't guarantee a Presidential win. It's about the overlying message.

 

[Thelonelykoopa]

Even more interesting that quite a few women voted for Trump.

Quite a few women also dont believe women are capable of being president.

 

[Izuna]

If a white male ran an identical campaign, that person would be president-elect. And by a good margin.

Also HRC has been shat on for being a woman like her whole fucking life.

 

[Manmademan]

Yes she did...

no, she didn't. she lost because she was Hillary Clinton, a candidate with abysmally low favorability ratings, a ton of baggage, and lacking the ability to connect enough with the public to combat those things.

My worry here- as a long time democrat and someone who voted for her, and voted for kerry, and voted for gore- is that some democrats will look at this loss, point to "sexism!" and learn absolutely fucking nothing.

Running the male equivalent to Hillary in 2020 will end up with democrats losing yet again, because sexism isn't the issue. racism isn't the issue. The democratic coalition is much broader than the republican one, and as such is more difficult to get them all to care enough to come out to the polls at the same time.

You want to win in 2020 and forward, you cannot keep running Gore, Kerry, Clinton, or any other compromise candidate that looks nice on paper but has the charisma of a wet paper bag.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

LOL.

If you think it's easier in the US to get by as a black man than a white woman, you may want to reevaluate your position a little.

Yea, give me a fucking break.

no, she didn't. she lost because she was Hillary Clinton, a candidate with abysmally low favorability ratings, a ton of baggage, and lacking the ability to connect enough with the public to combat those things.

My worry here- as a long time democrat and someone who voted for her, and voted for kerry, and voted for gore- is that some democrats will look at this loss, point to "sexism!" and learn absolutely fucking nothing.

Running the male equivalent to Hillary in 2020 will end up with democrats losing yet again, because sexism isn't the issue. racism isn't the issue. The democratic coalition is much broader than the republican one, and as such is more difficult to get them all to care enough to come out to the polls at the same time.

You want to win in 2020 and forward, you cannot keep running Gore, Kerry, Clinton, or any other compromise candidate that looks nice on paper but has the charisma of a wet paper bag.

This post should be required reading for anyone that is trying to do any type of analysis on this forum for why Trump won and why Clinton lost.

 

[entremet]

no, she didn't. she lost because she was Hillary Clinton, a candidate with abysmally low favorability ratings, a ton of baggage, and lacking the ability to connect enough with the public to combat those things.

My worry here- as a long time democrat and someone who voted for her, and voted for kerry, and voted for gore- is that some democrats will look at this loss, point to "sexism!" and learn absolutely fucking nothing.

Running the male equivalent to Hillary in 2020 will end up with democrats losing yet again, because sexism isn't the issue. racism isn't the issue. The democratic coalition is much broader than the republican one, and as such is more difficult to get them all the care enough to come out to the polls at the same time.

You want to win in 2020 and forward, you cannot keep running Gore, Kerry, Clinton, or any other compromise candidate that looks nice on paper but has the charisma of a wet paper bag.

That's my issue as well.

Bigotry exists and must be fought, but you can't fight it effectively your candidate keeps losing elections.

Many HRC and liberals are taking this badly and seeing any analysis as pandering to bigotry. It's not that all. It's looking at things objectively and learning from defeat, because if we keep making the same mistakes only the most vulnerable suffer.

It is our responsibility to these group to develop a winning strategy so their Civil Rights are protected and expanded.

 

[obin_gam]

There is nothing that is wors for a conservative than a black leader, but a female one.

 

[Keri]

no, she didn't. she lost because she was Hillary Clinton, a candidate with abysmally low favorability ratings, a ton of baggage, and lacking the ability to connect enough with the public to combat those things.

All things which were likely influenced by sexism. Imagine if a black man ran and the public response was: "Well, we like his policies, but we didn't vote for him, because we just don't trust him and feel comfortable about him." That's essentially what happened here with Clinton. Her policies (which were largely the same as Bernie Sanders and Obama) were liked, but the people just didn't feel good about her...for reasons.

 

[onadesertedisland]

I think it's nigh impossible for a specific woman to become president. She has lost twice. Others? Well, I think there are a few in particular that could easily win.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

no, she didn't. she lost because she was Hillary Clinton, a candidate with abysmally low favorability ratings, a ton of baggage, and lacking the ability to connect enough with the public to combat those things.

My worry here- as a long time democrat and someone who voted for her, and voted for kerry, and voted for gore- is that some democrats will look at this loss, point to "sexism!" and learn absolutely fucking nothing.

Running the male equivalent to Hillary in 2020 will end up with democrats losing yet again, because sexism isn't the issue. racism isn't the issue. The democratic coalition is much broader than the republican one, and as such is more difficult to get them all to care enough to come out to the polls at the same time.

You want to win in 2020 and forward, you cannot keep running Gore, Kerry, Clinton, or any other compromise candidate that looks nice on paper but has the charisma of a wet paper bag.

Every politician lies, comes with baggage and rarely connects with the public. Hillary was subjected to 30 years of republican smearing because she was a politician's wife that also had political aspirations. Heavens, you can't do that. If Hillary were a man, stuff like the email "scandal" would be total non-stories, but because she was a woman running for president there must be something fishy with her.

Gore and Kerry were easily better politicians than Dubya. If people can't learn to vote for the policy and not the person then we deserve to let this country fall to shitty people.

 

[lukeskymac]

I feel like these posts come in like clockwork. Like the discussion of gender and politics is literally impossible without some guy denying that gender has nothing to do with it. "It's about ethics in politics" etc.

Who said it has nothing to do with it, though? It just wasn't the main factor, and pretending it was reeks of Hillary and the DNC shifting away the blame for her loss.