Support NeoGAF

[Manmademan]

You have no reason to believe this to be true.

I actually do, those things correlate pretty well and this is pretty easy to verify.

You are literally just assuming that Democrats can't be sexist.

no, I'm not. I'm saying that it is not possible that the decline in democratic votes can be attributed to sexism. it's simply too large, and exclusively on the democratic side for this to be plausible.

If this were true, we'd have had a woman president by now.

I've already addressed this. You can continue to ignore it, but it speaks more about you than it does about me.

Women only really reached parity with men- being accepted as naturally part of the workforce or naturally doing most of the same jobs men do in the late 80s or early 90s. prior to that it was impossible.

Running for president takes an astronomical amount of money, and a TON of political connections built over decades- Obama being the exception, but even then he had a lot of backing from people like Reid and Kennedy that felt that HE was the direction the party needed to go in, not Clinton. The dead earliest any woman could have plausibly run was 00 or 04. Hillary ran in 08- but lost out to a better candidate running a better campaign, NOT sexism.

And, strangely, the fact that a black man was elected, speaks nothing about the existence of sexism. Historically, black men have obtained political rights well in advance of women. If this goes the way of the vote, it will be another 50 years before a woman is President.

Historically black men and women are economically FAR worse off than white women, and this isn't up for debate. White women represent far, FAR more of america's fortune 500 CEOS, blacks have seen no progress. White women have equivalent legal representation to white men, black men are shot dead in the street for looking at a cop the wrong way.

Pretending that "oh, they have it just as bad, or women are behind where black men are!" displays a shockingly terrible ignorance of what systemic racism even is.

don't go this route, i don't want to derail the thread.

That being said, Obama didn't win because he was "the first black president." Obama won because he was a fantastic candidate running an aggressive campaign. Hillary is neither.

 

[Keri]

Eh, Michelle Obama if she wanted to run (I don't blame her for not) would spank Clinton.

It's not so much an issue of Clinton being a woman, she just wasn't the right woman.

People keep saying that Michelle or Warren could win, but if either of these women tries to reach for the Presidency, you can bet public opinion will sway against them. For Michelle Obama, the focus would be on her complete lack of experience and people would characterize her as "riding her husband's coattails." Warren will similarly get criticized for a lack of experience.

Hillary was also well liked as First Lady and as a Senator.

 

[Audioboxer]

People keep saying that Michelle or Warren could win, but if either of these women tries to reach for the Presidency, you can bet public opinion will sway against them. For Michelle Obama, the focus would be on her complete lack of experience and people would characterize her as "riding her husband's coattails." Warren will similarly get criticized for a lack of experience.

Hillary was also well liked as First Lady and as a Senator.

Did you forget how dreadful mass public opinion of Clinton was? I mean I know many GAFers tried like crazy to swat down Clinton opinion, but outside of the bubble a hell of a lot of criticism existed. Like it or not part of the election is on how charismatic you are. People are going to say a lot of things about any candidate.

Also, experience? Donald fucking Trump son.....

 

[Keri]

Historically black men and women are economically FAR worse off than white women, and this isn't up for debate.

Yet they've historically been able to make political strides well in advance of women, because race and sex are viewed fundamentally differently. Even liberals find it easy to accept that women are fundamentally different from men, in ways that don't apply across race. You can see it in several discussions on this forum.

And despite the fact that you keep trying to assert that liberals are necessarily not sexist, it means something that so many liberals refuse to acknowledge that sexism played a role in this election.

Also, experience? Donald fucking Trump son.....

Trump proved that men don't have to have experience. If you think this rule applies equally to women, well, expect to be disappointed.

 

[Draxal]

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.

JFK broke the non-protestant block; Obama broke the non-white block.

Both were incredibly inspiring speakers, Hillary is not. There are other women speakers that have much more charisma than Hillary,, but I doubt any would reach Obama's level.

That's why I'm not sure if there's any inherent cap on women or not, is there a ceiling on a woman's presidents charisma? Are JFK and Obama just really charismatic because of their gender? I really don't know truth be told.

 

[Audioboxer]

Yet they've historically been able to make political strides well in advance of women, because race and sex are viewed fundamentally differently. Even liberals find it easy to accept that women are fundamentally different from men, in ways that don't apply across race. You can see it in several discussions on this forum.

And despite the fact that you keep trying to assert that liberals are necessarily not sexist, it means something that so many liberals refuse to acknowledge that sexism played a role in this election.



Trump proved that men don't have to have experience. If you think this rule applies equally to women, well, expect to be disappointed.

In terms of framing that within the presidency I would be happy for it to be tested first rather than the hypothesis made and confirmed without evidence. So I still hope for 2020 the Dems are careful about charisma and personality highly, arguably even over experience. As we just seen Clinton could have all the experience in the world and she fucking tanked it. To Donald Trump.

 

[Goodstyle]

Warren would have been crushed lol. "Pocahontas" alone would have buried her with white people.

 

[kitzkozan]

People keep saying that Michelle or Warren could win, but if either of these women tries to reach for the Presidency, you can bet public opinion will sway against them. For Michelle Obama, the focus would be on her complete lack of experience and people would characterize her as "riding her husband's coattails." Warren will similarly get criticized for a lack of experience.

Hillary was also well liked as First Lady and as a Senator.

Of course the republican would try to sway public opinion against them, they would want to win in any way possible. You just have to be strong enough to brush it off and it's easier when you are charismatic (and this being a good or bad thing is up for another discussion).

Just look at Ronda Rousey in the UFC and how she isn't the traditional female archetype as an athlete. She trash talk quite a bit and is a very polarizing figure (along with being far more arrogant than Hilary could be), but also very popular and put butts into seat and get people to buy PPV. When you have charisma, people will be way more lenient with you and forgive or forget a lot of things.

 

[Manmademan]

Yet they've historically been able to make political strides well in advance of women,

you want to keep doubling down on this? because it's false.

Throughout American history, there have only been eight black senators in total; in addition to Scott and Cowan, they include: Hiram Rhodes Revels (R-Miss.), Blanche Kelso Bruce (R-Miss.), Edward Brooke (R-Mass.), Carol Moseley Braun (D-Ill.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.), and Roland Burris (D-Ill.).Jan 30, 2013

That quote misses booker, so it would be 9 total.

There have been 46 women in the senate, and there are over twice as many female senators serving currently (20) than there have been black senators elected EVER.

And despite the fact that you keep trying to assert that liberals are necessarily not sexist, it means something that so many liberals refuse to acknowledge that sexism played a role in this election.

This is not what I'm saying, and you completely ignoring what I HAVE been saying is going to end this conversation period.

Trump proved that men don't have to have experience. If you think this rule applies equally to women, well, expect to be disappointed.

Trump proved that republicans vote for platform, not candidate. it doesn't matter who the republicans run, Romney and McCain and Bush all got the same amount of votes Trump did- within a million votes or so. Democrats do NOT vote this way, because their coalition is a lot more diverse.

 

[George Washington]

JFK broke the non-protestant block; Obama broke the non-white block.

Both were incredibly inspiring speakers, Hillary is not. There are other women speakers that have much more charisma with them, but I doubt any would reach Obama's level.

That's why I'm not sure if there's a woman block or not, is there a ceiling on a woman's presidents charisma? Are JFK and Obama just really charismatic because of their gender?

I agree. Obama was on a league of his own in recent times. Charismatic, charming, funny, and intellectual. Motivation is a huge factor when it comes to turnout.

 

[The Artisan]

She was a huge Obama fan and that was a big deal. But that was back when she had her network TV show. She retired from network TV since then and is not as relevant.

well the good news about that is that without a tv show in the way she'd have plenty of time to focus on the nation.

oprah 2020

 

[Keri]

In terms of framing that within the presidency I would be happy for it to be tested first rather than the hypothesis made and confirmed without evidence. So I still hope for 2020 the Dems are careful about charisma and personality highly, arguably even over experience. As we just seen Clinton could have all the experience in the world and she fucking tanked it. To Donald Trump.

I know you're speaking specifically about a Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Warren run, but it still pains me a little to see this phrase, in this context, because there's a ton of good evidence supporting the existence of sexism and sexism in politics. There's also been years of research done, demonstrating that women in power tend to be viewed more negatively than men and traits associated with leadership and power, viewed as positives in men, become negatives in women.

So the odds seem high, that people would turn on either candidate, if they sought to run for President.

 

[Calm waterfall]

Get a grip and face the facts. Hilary was unliked because of her record. People don´t trust her because she is a populist who says what people want to hear, like she has 2 speeches one for people one for wall street. The democrats should learn from this damn mistake, and stop trying to make people with lack of charisma and a shitty policy record the front runners. If Elizabeth Warren was the candidate she would taken the presidency. But the DNC gave it to Hilary, because Hilary said "It was my turn". Hilary did not campaign in some states because of her arrogance, even though Joe Biden and her husbond warned her about neglecting working white class families. She is arrogant, uncharismatic, with a shitty policy record. A lot of people don´t like or trust her, and they have no reason to.

Learn from these mistakes and don´t let the DNC decide which person should be front runner, or the main person to run against the republicans.

 

[Keri]

you want to keep doubling down on this? because it's false.



That quote misses booker, so it would be 9 total.

There have been 46 women in the senate, and there are over twice as many female senators serving currently (20) than there have been black senators elected EVER.

You realize that women are a much higher percentage of the population, right? I have no doubt that black people are underrepresented in politics, but statistically by population, there should be more women in politics than blacks.

Dude, I don't even know what you are going for anymore. Are you still trying to argue that racism and sexism are the same? That Obama being elected means that sexism doesn't exist?

 

[Breakfast at Noon]

No harder than a man.
Hillary is scum, you can't use her been female as the excuse.

 

[StormKing]

I'll just repeat this.

Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.

Hilary Clinton is beholden to corporate interests and Wall Street.

Hillary Clinton harmed national security through use of a private email server.

Hillary Clinton and the DNC colluded and cheated against Bernie Sanders in the primaries.

The Republicans successfully painted her as out of touch, corrupt and untrustworthy. It worked because she actually is out of touch, corrupt and untrustworthy.

The only reason Democrats had to vote for her was that Donald Trump was worse than her. That's why her campaign strategy was to focus on how terrible Trump is than how good Hillary is.

For some Democrats however, holding their nose and voting for Hillary was just impossible. That's why a lot of them either voted for third party or did not show up to the polls at all. And some of them, particularly in the Rust Belt states, even decided to vote for Trump.

This election was about how bad Hillary Clinton the candidate is, not about her gender.

America still has issues with sex, race and gender identity but those issues were not why Hillary Clinton lost the general election.

 

[Manmademan]

Get a grip and face the facts. Hilary was unliked because of her record. People don´t trust her because she is a populist who says what people want to hear, like she has 2 speeches one for people one for wall street. The democrats should learn from this damn mistake, and stop trying to make people with lack of charisma and a shitty policy record. If Elizabeth Warren was the candidate she would taken the presidency. But the DNC gave it to Hilary, because Hilary said "It was my turn". Hilary did not campaign in some states because of her arrogance, even though Joe Biden and her husbond warned her about neglecting working white class families. She is arrogant, uncharismatic, with a shitty policy record. A lot of people don´t like or trust her, and they have no reason to.

Learn from these mistakes and don´t let the DNC decide which person should be front runner, or the main person to run against the republicans.

Agree here. not running a competitive primary was a mistake. I don't like Bernie as a candidate, and think he would likely not have done well in the general, but the fact that he got as far as he did in the primary running a shoestring campaign says a LOT about how vulnerable hillary actually was.

I imagine Biden seriously going after the nomination would have crushed her.

 

[tapedeck]

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

First post wins, etc.

 

[BajiBoxer]

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1313217

So, a woman who is considered one of the least popular candidates of all time with decades of baggage may win the popular vote by millions. That's a good sign as far as a woman winning the white house in the future. The problem is focused in specific states. The rust belt aparently carries a disproportionate amount of influence at the moment, and you can't fuck up with those voters the way Clinton did. The total population demographics is favorable, but the population distribution is not.

 

[Mediking]

Trump also said multiple bizarre things and he STILL won. I WONDER WHY.

 

[Manmademan]

You realize that women are a much higher percentage of the population, right? I have no doubt that black people are underrepresented in politics, but statistically by population, there should be more women in politics than blacks.

Dude, I don't even know what you are going for anymore. Are you still trying to argue that racism and sexism are the same? That Obama being elected means that sexism doesn't exist?

I see it's pointless to discuss much with you further, since you continue to ignore what IS said in favor of what you want to believe. enjoy the ignore list.

 

[Audioboxer]

I know you're speaking specifically about a Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Warren run, but it still pains me a little to see this phrase, in this context, because there's a ton of good evidence supporting the existence of sexism and sexism in politics. There's also been years of research done, demonstrating that women in power tend to be viewed more negatively than men and traits associated with leadership and power, viewed as positives in men, become negatives in women.

So the odds seem high, that people would turn on either candidate, if they sought to run for President.

I mean to the point of it being confirmed the candidate actually lost the election due to it. The same point is highlighted with Obama and racism. As much as it exists you can still push through it and gain enough liberal votes to win. Remember democrats are often on the sides of liberals. Racist/sexist republicans aren't voting for these candidates.

Clinton didn't lose because she was a woman, and was incredibly experienced. Hence I am of the opinion someone less experienced but with more charisma and personality could win just fine.

 

[Keri]

I see it's pointless to discuss much with you further, since you continue to ignore what IS said in favor of what you want to believe. enjoy the ignore list.

LOL. I see you aren't able to discuss this issue then. I expected as much.

 

[Register]

Her meme game was simply not dank enough compared to Trump.

 

[StormKing]

LOL. I see you aren't able to discuss this issue then. I expected as much.

Are you trying to argue that black people are better off than white women?

 

[Keri]

I mean to the point of it being confirmed the candidate actually lost the election due to it. The same point is highlighted with Obama and racism. As much as it exists you can still push through it and gain enough liberal votes to win. Remember democrats are often on the sides of liberals. Racist/sexist republicans aren't voting for these candidates.

I don't think it's possible to ever prove conclusively how sexism or racism plays into things like this. And, while I'd like to believe that it's possible for female candidate to "push through it and gain enough liberal votes to win," it's yet to happen. Also, part of my disagreement with Manmademan, is the idea that Democrats are immune to sexism. I don't think they are and, in fact, the sexism that exists within the Democratic and Independent parties is the only sexism that matters in Clinton's case, because Republicans weren't going to vote for her anyway.

 

[Audioboxer]

I don't think it's possible to ever prove conclusively how sexism or racism plays into things like this. And, while I'd like to believe that it's possible for female candidate to "push through it and gain enough liberal votes to win," it's yet to happen. Also, part of my disagreement with Manmademan, is the idea that Democrats are immune to sexism. I don't think they are and, in fact, the sexism that exists within the Democratic and Independent parties is the only sexism that matters in Clinton's case, because Republicans weren't going to vote for her anyway.

I mean no I'm not going to say immune, but it is worth pointing out these candidates are typically courting a liberal audience who do tend to be far more open minded and civil. I come from a country where we unanimously voted in a female leader, or at least the liberals did. I just think America can do it too, Clinton just wasn't the right person.

 

[Keri]

Are you trying to argue that black people are better off than white women?

No, I'm arguing that Obama's election doesn't disprove the existence of sexism or the fact that sexism can hinder a woman being elected. In doing that, I noted that black men have historically made political strides well in advance of women. That doesn't mean that "black people are better off than white women," but it does mean that racism and sexism are different and have different effects.

 

[dakini]

That's true too. It doesn't help that she wore those Korean dictator dresses. Not to be funny, but they made her appear cold and bland instead of neutral and neither too feminine or masculine (which is what I think they were trying to go for and failed).

So her gender had nothing to do with it, but now we're talking about how her ugly clothes were a part of why she lost? lol

 

[StormKing]

No, I'm arguing that Obama's election doesn't disprove the existence of sexism or the fact that sexism can hinder a woman being elected. In doing that, I noted that black men have historically made political strides well in advance of women. That doesn't mean that "black people are better off than white women," but it does mean that racism and sexism are different and have different effects.

Obama won because he was strong candidate.

Hillary Clinton lost because she was a weak candidate.

Do you agree with this or not? Or are you arguing that Clinton lost and Obama won because people aren't as racist as they are sexist?

 

[Principate]

I mean to the point of it being confirmed the candidate actually lost the election due to it. The same point is highlighted with Obama and racism. As much as it exists you can still push through it and gain enough liberal votes to win. Remember democrats are often on the sides of liberals. Racist/sexist republicans aren't voting for these candidates.

Clinton didn't lose because she was a woman, and was incredibly experienced. Hence I am of the opinion someone less experienced but with more charisma and personality could win just fine.

I don't think Obama successful has remotely anything to witgbracism levels in America vs sexism. Obama represents a minority the first in American history at the highest level. Hillary doesn't because while white women aren't as successful as white men in America they're very successful economically and growing. Who Hillary appeals to specifically as a candidate is women as the first female preseident, the thing is white women in general don't care about That seemingly as they prefer a Republican status quo. They don't seem to oppressed so the fact a blatant misognist could be president doesn't bother them that much.

No you could say that all inbuilt sexism but when your talking about the majority of voting white women you can't make that arguement without coming off as extremely condesending.

 

[mlclmtckr]

People are saying it wasn't sexism, it was emails and Benghazi.

Which are two totally bullshit manufactured smears that the media and voting public ate up. Why?

 

[Keri]

Obama won because he was strong candidate.

Hillary Clinton lost because she was a weak candidate.

Do you agree with this or not? Or are you arguing that Clinton lost and Obama won because people aren't as racist as they are sexist?

I don't agree that Clinton was a weak candidate. I think that sexism is a contributing factor in why others do. I think that, because sexism and racism are fundamentally different, she faced biases that Obama didn't.

 

[StormKing]

People are saying it wasn't sexism, it was emails and Benghazi.

Which are two totally bullshit manufactured smears that the media and voting public ate up. Why?

Because Hillary is a career politician and people hate most career politicians.

 

[joe2187]

People are saying it wasn't sexism, it was emails and Benghazi.

Which are two totally bullshit manufactured smears that the media and voting public ate up. Why?

It was literally memes.

Trump used them very successfully. His strategy was to repeat the same mantra and chant over and over again, emphasizing it with words that sounded dire to implant doubt into peoples minds.

So much so, that no matter how many times people went over the emails, or the benghazi case and found no wrong doings on her part...the doubt still lingered and tarnish her image irreparably.

That led to the general apathy in this election, where people couldn't decide on either candidate because of the distrust spread through trump himself, the Republican party and the media itself.

 

[StormKing]

I don't agree that Clinton was a weak candidate.

If you don't agree that Clinton was a weak candidate, then it's pointless to discuss this further. You'll just continue to blame Clinton's loss on sexism rather than on her own mistakes and decisions.

 

[rokkerkory]

Believe in Chelsea

 

[Audioboxer]

I don't think Obama successful has remotely anything to witgbracism levels in America vs sexism. Obama represents a minority the first in American history at the highest level. Hillary doesn't because while white women aren't as successful as white men in America they're very successful economically and growing. Who Hillary appeals to specifically as a candidate is women as the first female preseident, the thing is white women in general don't care about That seemingly as they prefer a Republican status quo. They don't seem to oppressed so the fact a blatant misognist could be president doesn't bother them that much.

No you could say that all inbuilt sexism but when your talking about the majority of voting white women you can't make that arguement without coming off as extremely condesending.

It maybe is a flawed argument, but it was more to show again that the Democrat voting base is largely liberal and even in a racist society Obama got a mass of votes. Not all of those votes were because "hey first black president!". Some sure, but many people just liked the damn guy! Many still do. His personality is ace. People voted for Hillary because "hey first female president!", but where she then failed was personality. She was utterly dreadful compared to Obama. The Dems bled votes this election.

The same will largely apply for any candidate in the Democrat position. Again, because the voters are largely liberals who care about minority rights, LGBT, women's rights, equal marriage and so forth. The utterly appalling racism, sexism and so forth tends to rear it's head on the right. It's not as big an issue for the Democrat runner.

 

[mlclmtckr]

Because Hillary is a career politician and people hate most career politicians.

Like Bernie?

 

[ProfessorMoran]

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

This.

There are good women candidates in both parties, Hillary simply isn't one of them.

 

[MIMIC]

The take away from this election shouldn't be why it's hard for a woman to become President. That's ignoring all of the other major headlines and stories. Sexism magnified the reason why people didn't want Hillary, but it wasn't the reason.

Like the article mentioned, she won the popular vote. That in itself should be a good enough reason to illustrate why the United States has been more than ready to elect a female President.

Sexism and attitudes that disparage women will probably always exist, but definitely not to the point where it would automatically disqualify a person for President.

 

[Keri]

If you don't agree that Clinton was a weak candidate, then it's pointless to discuss this further. You'll just continue to blame Clinton's loss on sexism rather than on her own mistakes and decisions.

If you don't agree that sexism was a factor, then I agree that it's pointless for us to discuss further.

 

[Jenov]

How could anyone think sexism wasn't at least 1 of a few factors going on here... like seriously? Do you guys not remember how many people made comments about her looks, her voice, what she was wearing, how "fake" she was? These were very common comments even on this forum. There's no way to measure how much of a factor sexism was, but it definitely was one.

 

[Black_Red]

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.

But it is true, woman have been president in many countries that have bigger problems with sexism than USA, just look at latin america. I know this thread is about USA, but you can't just blame it on sexism when countries where woman go to jail if they abort have a female president.

 

[davepoobond]

Perhaps its safe to say Men never lose the election because they are a man -- but the one woman who ran and lost had some unique things about her and writing off that being a woman wasn't a factor is shortsighted.

She didnt lose the popular vote, she lost on strategy.

 

[ronco2000]

Because there are some women who'll be jealous not to be the first of anything. They'll vote for the male just it won't happen. I think thats the reason Hillary lost. 42% of women voted for Trump. I would think 5% of those were jealous.

 

[Jenov]

But it is true, woman have been president in many countries that have bigger problems with sexism than USA, just look at latin america. I know this thread is about USA, but you can't just blame it on sexism when countries where woman go to jail if they abort have a female president.

Latin america has gender quotas for government, something the US would never implement.

http://www.humanosphere.org/world-p...oes-latin-america-have-so-many-women-leaders/

"One reason so many Latin American women have been able to obtain these positions, Caivano said, was the introduction of gender quotas. Like in Europe, much of the region utilizes a quota system to crack open the gate for women making political connections.

“Argentina was the first country to adopt gender quotas for political office,” Caivano said, “and that’s something we would never do [in the U.S.]. We don’t have it, and we won’t ever have it.”

To date, 16 of the 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have adopted gender quota laws. Many credit this system for the fact that 25 percent to 50 percent of national legislatures in Latin American countries are female – by contrast, the U.S. recently reached an all-time high of just 20 percent."

http://news.trust.org/item/20140311145355-62rug

http://www.panoramas.pitt.edu/news-and-politics/gender-quotas-net-positive-latin-america

 

[Keri]

For people wondering why it's so hard for a woman to become President (or why I'm so pessimistic about a Michelle Obama or Warren run), I offer you this study .

Voters are less likely to vote for female politicians when they perceive them as power-seeking, though male politicians are not penalized.

• All things being equal, study participants were likely to perceive female politicians as being just about equally power-seeking as male politicians.
• When participants saw male politicians as power-seeking, they also saw them as having greater agency (i.e., being more assertive, stronger, and tougher) and greater competence, while this was not true for their perceptions of power-seeking female politicians.
• When participants saw female politicians as power-seeking, they also saw them as having less communality (i.e., being unsupportive and uncaring), while this was not true for their perceptions of power-seeking male politicians.
• When female politicians were described as power-seeking, participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e., contempt, anger, and/or disgust) towards them.
• Participant gender had no impact on any of the study outcomes – that is, women were just as likely as men to have negative reactions to power-seeking female politicians.

In short, both a power-seeking image and expressed power-seeking intent can bias voters against female politicians.

Running for President is an act of "power-seeking." It's seeking the greatest amount of power possible. The act of running in the first place, turns voters against a female candidate and leads to feelings of dislike, anger and disgust. So it's quite likely that future female candidates, whoever they are, will similarly suffer from a general "dislike" that makes them "just not the right woman."

 

[davepoobond]

For people wondering why it's so hard for a woman to become President (or why I'm so pessimistic about a Michelle Obama or Warren run), I offer you this study .



Running for President is an act of "power-seeking." It's seeking the greatest amount of power possible. The act of running in the first place, turns voters against a female candidate and leads to feelings of dislike, anger and disgust. So it's quite likely that future female candidates, whoever they are, will similarly suffer from a general "dislike" that makes them "just not the right woman."

i heard it too at my job "i'm okay with a woman... just not THAT woman"

and we hear it after she lost the primary vote in 2008 and her concession speech this year. "Where was that Hillary Clinton?"

actually watching her, its clear to see she was "there" the whole time, but when she loses then people feel sorry for her and are more accepting of what she has to say apparently.

its a very interesting dynamic.

 

[Ninjimbo]

The Hillary bashing here feels so wrong. I feel like the debates where Hillary showed that she was a knowledgeable and respectful candidate didn't happen.

It definitely feels to me that Hillary's flaws are blown out of proportion.