Support NeoGAF

[StormKing]

This is why we disagree. I can't see a world where an unexperienced female candidate wins the presidency. I think that a man with the same background as Hillary and who made the same mistakes in his campaign as Hillary, would overwhelmingly be our President, if pitted against a Donald Trump candidate.

Male Hillary Clinton would not be the nominee if he voted for the Iraq War. Male Hillary Clinton would be a far worse candidate than female Hillary Clinton. Democrats would feel free to attack her without fearing to be accused of sexism. Male Hillary Clinton would be denounced as a warhawk, and a corrupt corporate stooge.

Female Donald Trump would win because she was not Male Hillary Clinton.

 

[secondspace]

I'd definitely accept the idea that a man with Hillary's record could have overcome that record with a heavy dose of charisma. I think a man can play the rogue in politics in a way that's impossible for women.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I'd definitely accept the idea that a man with Hillary's record could have overcome that record with a heavy dose of charisma. I think a man can play the rogue in politics in a way that's impossible for women.

Hillary got heavily derailed by emails. EMAILS. Trump... got away with everything.

 

[Keri]

Male Hillary Clinton would not be the nominee if he voted for the Iraq War. Male Hillary Clinton would be a far worse candidate than female Hillary Clinton. Democrats would feel free to attack her without fearing to be accused of sexism. Male Hillary Clinton would be denounced as a warhawk, and a corrupt corporate stooge.

Female Donald Trump would win because she was not Male Hillary Clinton.

Male Hillary Clinton wouldn't be disliked to the same extent that actual Hillary Clinton is disliked, so "he" wouldn't be a worse candidate. In contrast, a female Donald Trump would be even more hated and would be crucified. Look at the study I posted earlier, being "power-seeking" is a positive for men and a negative for women. Men and women alike are prone to distrust and dislike any woman who runs for President.

 

[StormKing]

Said another way, I think a woman with Trump's qualities wouldn't be tolerated. Consider the vitriol that gets flung at comparably quiet personalities like Amy Schumer.

A woman-Trump wouldn't make it past the stigma that she's terrible at business because of all her bankruptcies, and utterly evil for not paying contractors, and suing her way out of everything. Can you imagine? She'd be the most evil person in America.

You're absolutely right that the Republicans would find it harder to stomach a female Donald Trump. The rest of the Republican candidates would still be terrible and they would still lose.

 

[Nickle]

I'd definitely accept the idea that a man with Hillary's record could have overcome that record with a heavy dose of charisma. I think a man can play the rogue in politics in a way that's impossible for women.

Anyone with charisma could have won with Hillary's record. Hilary could have won if she had charisma.

 

[PdotMichael]

A male H. Clinton would haven't able to play politics with safety net as first lady for 8 years.

 

[StormKing]

Anyone with charisma could have won with Hillary's record. Hilary could have won if she had charisma.

If Hillary had Michelle Obama's charisma she would have won no doubt.

 

[Night Angel]

To be honest, according to GAF she pretty much was the best ever. But then GAF pretty much "retconned" this after Tuesday.

It's almost like different people with different opinions were finally able to speak without getting shit on by a small subset of militant posters.

 

[Nibiru]

On a call with donors Hillary blamed Comey for her loss.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-blames-fbis-comey-her-defeat-call-donors-192550974.html

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton blamed FBI director James Comey for her stunning defeat in Tuesday's presidential election in a conference call with her top campaign funders on Saturday, according to two participants on the call.

It seems that nothing has been learned at all and she also didn't blame her gender.

 

[dramatis]

If someone like Elizabeth Warren had been running, Trump wouldn't have been able to use Bill Clinton to shield himself every time someone accused him of sexual assault.

I think she would also be characterized as a liar, because of the silly Native American thing. That tag somehow sticks to a woman much more than it does to a man.

Would it have affected Warren's chances? Who the hell knows. But sexism against Warren would have also been inevitable.

On a call with donors Hillary blamed Comey for her loss.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-blames-fbis-comey-her-defeat-call-donors-192550974.html

It seems that nothing has been learned at all.

What, pray tell, does this have to do with the topic of discussion?

I saw your edit. Don't make a pretense that what you want to talk about really is gender in politics.

 

[Trey]

This is why we lose. Because when conseravatives lose they blame us and when we lose we blame us. Conservative victory is always some hurricane, some inevitable weather phenomenon that it's our job to stop without agency of its own, instead of the conscious choice of people

well put. self defeatist. there is only forward, brush yourselves off and win again.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Wrong, He's still a man(with Joe Biden right by his side), and black folks(YOUNG and old) fucking love him. Now compare that to the support(or lack thereof) of white women for Hillary. She lost that demographic decisively... TO DONALD TRUMP. I mean, how is that even possible?

It's harder for a woman, and it shouldn't even be up for debate.

You're dead wrong. Barack Obama had a much tougher road to become POTUS than Hillary Clinton as a white woman. Please....

She had all the tools and opportunities yet she still made colossal mistakes because of her poor judgement ever since she failed her DC Bar exam. That Frontline doc about Hillary and Trump is eye-opening.

 

[PdotMichael]

Obama was dealing with another level of bullshit. There was the other side who just claimed that he wasn't even American.

You can't compare it with a bunch of emails, which were also the result of her not acting properly.

 

[Skux]

If Trump were a woman she still would have beaten Hillary.

 

[Keri]

A male H. Clinton would haven't able to play politics with safety net as first lady for 8 years.

A male Hillary Clinton wouldn't need to.

I think it's interesting that one of people's favorite alternatives to Hillary Clinton is Michelle Obama, despite the fact that Michelle Obama has no political experience of her own. I think there's a secret hope that installing Michelle Obama in the office, secretly means that you get a 3rd Barack Obama term. And, if I'm being honest, I think some of that was true for Hillary Clinton as well. I don't know how a female politician that doesn't have the backing of a well-loved politician husband, fairs.

 

[Jonm1010]

Agreed. She was a terrible candidate with horrible history that her opponents targeted with ease, while the establishment and her supporters either deflected or said "it's not THAT BAD! TRUMMMP BAAAD"

Put Warren in that race and watch her go hard as a mother fucker.

And through what prism was a large part of that horrible history established around?

Ever since she stepped out on the national stage during the Clinton administration she has been marred with sexist rooted attacks.

It happened again with her senate run and with 08.

And instead of just rooting it out the media just calls it her "baggage."

 

[Principate]

A male Hillary Clinton wouldn't need to.

I think it's interesting that one of people's favorite alternatives to Hillary Clinton is Michelle Obama, despite the fact that Michelle Obama has no political experience of her own. I think there's a secret hope that installing Michelle Obama in the office, secretly means that you get a 3rd Barack Obama term. And, if I'm being honest, I think some of that was true for Hillary Clinton as well. I don't know how a female politician that doesn't have the backing of a well-loved politician husband, fairs.

Political experience doesn't matter almost half the voting public (likely more) has shown with Trump. She is a very good public speaker,the kind that can appeal to people from all works of life which is extremely rare and gives off a persona of reliabilty. Hillary Clinton does not give off that persona which is which questions of her trustworthiness has plagued her, even from her own side. As far has leadership qualities to fire up a base she has them in spades.

 

[dramatis]

A male Hillary Clinton wouldn't need to.

I think it's interesting that one of people's favorite alternatives to Hillary Clinton is Michelle Obama, despite the fact that Michelle Obama has no political experience of her own. I think there's a secret hope that installing Michelle Obama in the office, secretly means that you get a 3rd Barack Obama term. And, if I'm being honest, I think some of that was true for Hillary Clinton as well. I don't know how a female politician that doesn't have the backing of a well-loved politician husband, fairs.

That was one of the things mentioned in the article in the OP, that a female candidate often has a boost from relations.

More likely, it is that a female candidate needs a boost from relations to be able to navigate politics with any semblance of power, and win.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

You're dead wrong. Barack Obama had a much tougher road to become POTUS than Hillary Clinton as a white woman. Please....

She had all the tools and opportunities yet she still made colossal mistakes because of her poor judgement ever since she failed her DC Bar exam. That Frontline doc about Hillary and Trump is eye-opening.

You're wrong. See, I can play that game too.

 

[Jonm1010]

A male Hillary Clinton wouldn't need to.

I think it's interesting that one of people's favorite alternatives to Hillary Clinton is Michelle Obama, despite the fact that Michelle Obama has no political experience of her own. I think there's a secret hope that installing Michelle Obama in the office, secretly means that you get a 3rd Barack Obama term. And, if I'm being honest, I think some of that was true for Hillary Clinton as well. I don't know how a female politician that doesn't have the backing of a well-loved politician husband, fairs.

Michelle Obama would fail spectacularly if she managed to win with no experience.

Trump will at least have well organized puppet masters at his disposal if he just wants to be a figure head and go play golf a couple days a week and spend the weekend in Trump tower.

Heck Obama was really not a good president on the domestic policy front til, unfortunately, after the Republicans took control.

 

[Keri]

Political experience doesn't matter almost half the voting public (likely more) has shown with Trump. She is a very good public speaker,the kind that can appeal to people from all works of life which is extremely rare and gives off a persona of reliabilty. Hillary Clinton does not give off that persona which is which questions of her trustworthiness has plagued her, even from her own side. As far has leadership qualities to fire up a base she has them in spades.

It seems to matter, when it comes to women:

Female candidates have to be more qualified than their male opponents to succeed in an election because many voters have a hard time seeing women as leaders, according to research conducted by Dr. Cecilia Hyunjung Mo, an assistant professor of political science at Vanderbilt University.

“Based upon my research, Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina have the challenge of clearly demonstrating to voters that they are more qualified than their male counterparts,” she told The Huffington Post. “And they have the additional challenge of figuring out how to be more qualified in the ways that matter to most voters today.”

Even if voters explicitly say that they are happy to have a female president, the research shows that their unconscious biases still can influence their candidate preferences, Mo said in the video below, released by the university on Monday.

Also, people like Michelle Obama now, but research indicates this would likely change, dramatically, if she ran for President: "When female politicians were described as power-seeking, participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e., contempt, anger, and/or disgust) towards them." There's no way to run for President and not be thought of as "power seeking."

 

[eyeball_kid]

Ann Richards got elected governor of Texas as an outspoken feminist. If she could win as a female Democrat in Texas, a woman can do it nationally.

Some choice Ann Richards quotes:

I'm delighted to be here with you this evening, because after listening to George Bush all these years, I figured you needed to know what a real Texas accent sounds like. Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.

If you give us a chance, we can perform. After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels.

I've always said that in politics, your enemies can't hurt you, but your friends will kill you.

I get a lot of cracks about my hair, mostly from men who don’t have any.

We're not going to have the America that we want until we elect leaders who are going to tell the truth – not most days, but every day.

Hillary was just the wrong candidate at the wrong time. The difference between Ann and Hillary is that Ann could punch just as hard with intelligence and sharp wit, but she had so much charm that you couldn't help but like her even if you hated her guts. Where Hillary retreated into an insular bubble over the years, Ann remained public and defiant and talked plainly in the kind of way that rural America appreciates. Whenever I saw Obama or Hillary Clinton speak in rural areas, they'd often slip into these folksy Southernisms in an attempt to signal "I'm like you", but Ann was the real deal. Yet she had class and grace. People like someone that they can relate to, but also look up to.

If there's ever going to be a female President, and I hope I live to see it, it'll be someone like Ann.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Governor is very different than President. You think Scott Walker stands a chance as to win a Presidency? Or the vast majority of Governors out there?

Ann Richards would've been very interesting though, she had the kind of charisma that could thwart off bullshit attacks, and could easily breakthrough with young folk. It's unfortunate how much more important style over substance(not that Ann lacked either) really is when running for President, but that's how you get two terms of Bush, and a Trump. (even though Trump's style and presentation is actually a disaster, but in 2016, that shit didn't really matter)

 

[eyeball_kid]

Governor is very different than President. You think Scott Walker stands a chance as to win a Presidency? Or the vast majority of Governors out there?

I was more so saying that she won in a huge state that leans Republican, a state who had never elected a female governor before. A state rife with sexist good ol' boy attitudes. Yet she won them over, or at least enough to get elected. I think she provided a good template.

I don't know how she would've done in a presidential run against Bush. Would've been interesting for sure.

 

[Principate]

It seems to matter, when it comes to women:



Also, people like Michelle Obama now, but research indicates this would likely change, dramatically, if she ran for President: "When female politicians were described as power-seeking, participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e., contempt, anger, and/or disgust) towards them." There's no way to run for President and not be thought of as "power seeking."

That's not a carte la blanche. If Michelle were to run in 2020 I doubt that label would stick all that strongly to her, for one she's made it clear she doesn't want to run but people are urging her (thus it would a reluctant stepping up), and two the fact she's not even in politics at all beyond her husband makes that a filmsy attack. That's not to say analysis from the study is incorrect but context matters. The reason why It stuck to Clinton so much (and thus her being a women made it a large negative) is that she's been a politician for a while this was her second attempt at Presidency.

On the first point doubt most voters even care about qualifications that much male or female, the reason it sticks out more for women is that large amounts of th population don't believe women as leaders. Which is the problem that would need to be combatted, not how qualified they are. Hillar had all the qualifications in the world she lost to a candicate with none and laundry lists worth of scandals. I believe Michelle Obama can be percieved as a leader much better than Hiliary Clinton in spite of all her qualifications. She talks the talk and gives off that impression, which is highlyimportant.

 

[Keri]

That's not a carte la blanche. If Michelle were to run in 2020 I doubt that label would stick all that strongly to her, for one she's made it clear she doesn't want to run but people are urging her (thus it would a reluctant stepping up), and two the fact she's not even in politics at all beyond her husband makes that a filmsy attack. That's not to say analysis from the study is incorrect but context matters. The reason why It stuck to Clinton so much (and thus her being a women made it a large negative) is that she's been a politician for a while this was her second attempt at Presidency.

Don't you see though, at best it's a sliding scale. Any women with political experience, will be seen as opportunistic and "power seeking." The only women who can avoid being seen as "power seeking" would have to have little-to-no political experience, but studies indicate that to even have a shot at winning, a female candidate needs to be more qualified than her male competitor (obviously it didn't work out well in this election). These are problems that just don't effect male candidates.

Hillar had all the qualifications in the world she lost to a candicate with none and laundry lists worth of scandals.

I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion from this fact. I don't think Hillary's loss proves that an unqualified woman can win a presidential election, because it shows people don't care about qualifications. I think it shows that even a qualified woman pitted against an unqualified man, loses. Qualifications are necessary to get into the race if you're a woman, but still not enough to seal the deal.

 

[MIMIC]

If Trump were a woman she still would have beaten Hillary.

I think it would be the opposite; I don't think a woman could have gotten away with acting like Trump. Society likes a woman to be prim and proper. A vile, foul-mouthed woman would definitely have been heavily looked down upon, IMO. People would look at Hillary and figure that that's how a woman is "supposed" to behave. And I think that contrast would have allowed people to look past the reasons for why they didn't like her.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I was more so saying that she won in a huge state that leans Republican, a state who had never elected a female governor before. A state rife with sexist good ol' boy attitudes. Yet she won them over, or at least enough to get elected. I think she provided a good template.

I don't know how she would've done in a presidential run against Bush. Would've been interesting for sure.

You do have a few democratic governors in very red states(and vice versa), but you're right, I don't think there's any women pulling that off right now. From what I've seen and read of Ann, she really was one of a kind.

 

[Karkador]

Ann Richards got elected governor of Texas as an outspoken feminist. If she could win as a female Democrat in Texas, a woman can do it nationally.

From what I'm reading in articles about the race at the time, that was was also one of the ugliest mudfests Americans had seen in an election, too, with personal attacks lobbed at her about drug use and alcoholism.

Coincidence, or can men in power just not engage women in power with respect?

 

[Principate]

Don't you see though, at best it's a sliding scale. Any women with political experience, will be seen as opportunistic and "power seeking." The only women who can avoid being seen as "power seeking" would have to have little-to-no political experience, but studies indicate that to even have a shot at winning, a female candidate needs to be more qualified than her male competitor (obviously it didn't work out well in this election). These are problems that just don't effect male candidates.



I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion from this fact. I don't think Hillary's loss proves that an unqualified woman can win a presidential election, because it shows people don't care about qualifications. I think it shows that even a qualified woman pitted against an unqualified man, loses. Qualifications are necessary to get into the race if you're a woman, but still not enough to seal the deal.

I don't believe so, because qualifications mean more than just previous experience. It's proven time and time again, that the default state of large swades of the population to politics is apathy, especially in regards in democratics. People stand and listen only if one offer them something they want and your persuasive enough for them to believe and buy into you. You give them hope something for them to believe in. It's easier for a man to do that than female but that doesn't mean a woman who can and has successfully do that would not beat a male that can't. Just like a black male can beat a white male with less experience but more charisma/better message.

 

[Keri]

I don't believe so, because qualifications mean more than just previous experience. It's proven time and time again, that the default state of large swades of the population to politics is apathy, especially in regards in democratics. People stand and listen only if one offer them something they want and your persuasive enough for them to believe and buy into you. You give them hope something for them to believe in. It's easier for a man to do that than female but that doesn't mean a woman who can and has successfully do that would not beat a male that can't. Just like a black male can beat a white male with less experience but more charisma/better message.

I feel like you're ignoring the conclusions of the studies I posted. Even people who explicitly say they want a female President have unconscious biases which indicate a female candidate has to have more qualifications (i.e. experience) than a male candidate to get their vote. It sounds like you're just extraordinarily hopeful that a female candidate will come along one day and destroy all these rules...Well, I hope so, but I don't see any reason to expect that anytime soon.

 

[axb2013]

I don't doubt the thesis of the article any but attaching this to Hillary's loss doesn't really address the actual failures of her campaign.

Agreed. The Clinton marriage, the elitist image she was unable to shake, the arrogant campaign and the gaffes that made her look fake motivated people to vote against her while uninspiring to many potential voters that democrats should be able to rally.

The American voter is less inclined to vote for a Merkel, Palin works better here, appearance is more of a factor. With this turnout, brilliant women would also have to be attractive, have impeccable marriage and reputation, non-offensive reproductive history, produce outstanding achievements and have extraordinary charisma to attract enough votes from own camp and neutrals without riling up too many voters inclined to vote against a woman.

 

[Principate]

I feel like you're ignoring the conclusions of the studies I posted. Even people who explicitly say they want a female President have unconscious biases which indicate a female candidate has to have more qualifications (i.e. experience) than a male candidate to get their vote. It sounds like you're just extraordinarily hopeful that a female candidate will come along one day and destroy all these rules...Well, I hope so, but I don't see any reason to expect that anytime soon.

I'm not ignoring them. Fact of the matter is Donald Trump has kicked the ass of numerous male career politicians by appealing to voters in a way they couldn't with no politicial experience and baggage at all. There was a reason for this, because he understood his base better than they did. This is not a male specific trait at all. for every analysis there are boundaries conditions/ limitations. There is nothing stopping a female candidate from pulling that off, they can't do it in the same way and it'd be harder but not impossible. We do not live in a world of averages and means we live in a world filled with distributions, exceptions that also contribute to these results also exist. They're just rarer.

 

[Manmademan]

so...let's talk about just how bad a candidate hillary clinton was.

This new york times article

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign.html

was posted elsewhere- but being the NYT it's tough to copy/paste from those things. so you get images.

Jesus Goddamned Christ. how can one person be THIS stubborn and stupid? Despite an overwhelming monetary advantage and plenty of surrogates, Clinton's response to actually getting out and campaigning to reach blue state white democrats was "aint nobody got time for that."

This is EXACTLY the same strategy she leaned on during the 08 primary. Hunker down in a handful of states to give you the win on super tuesday, ignore everything else. The Obama team saw this, recognized it for what it was, and dismantled her by reaching out to caucus states she couldn't be bothered to acknowledge.

This is the mark of someone who interacts with people only as much as she needs to, and no more. Obama and Bill Clinton were the exact opposite- they aren't just charismatic, those two believed in outreach anywhere they could possibly get to.

No hillary, the country isn't "deeply divided." Campaigning means not taking your voters for granted. It means breaking your back to reach out to everyone, even those you don't think you 'need.'

By not doing so, you've thrown the country back 20 years, and undone all of the hard work of the Obama presidency.

Hillary and the "sexism" argument can both go to hell as far as I'm concerned. It's indefensible.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Hillary got heavily derailed by emails. EMAILS. Trump... got away with everything.

Hillary was supposedly a dedicated servant of government. Whether fair or not, the reality is that someone with that record claim is probably going to be held to a higher standard of conduct and to a greater level of scrutiny than some schmuck who ran a reality TV show. This is ultimately the problem with everyone treating him like a joke. He should have been treated like the serious threat he was.

 

[kitzkozan]

I feel like you're ignoring the conclusions of the studies I posted. Even people who explicitly say they want a female President have unconscious biases which indicate a female candidate has to have more qualifications (i.e. experience) than a male candidate to get their vote. It sounds like you're just extraordinarily hopeful that a female candidate will come along one day and destroy all these rules...Well, I hope so, but I don't see any reason to expect that anytime soon.

Ronda Rousey came to the UFC and destroyed numerous rules and preconceived notion. It will happen in the world of US politics, although Clinton didn't even need extraordinary charisma to win. Victory was perfectly within reach and she and her team made crucial mistakes. If anything, I feel that it's going to be much harder for a woman to obtain the nomination within the republican party.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Governor is very different than President. You think Scott Walker stands a chance as to win a Presidency? Or the vast majority of Governors out there?

I mean governor is probably the closer analog to that station than any other office. That's why it's typically one of the favored positions along with Senators for presidential runs.

I think a charismatic governor like Ann could make a difference and win a presidency. I don't think most of us would presume to claim to know how charismatic most governors are.

 

[Chariot]

I'd definitely accept the idea that a man with Hillary's record could have overcome that record with a heavy dose of charisma. I think a man can play the rogue in politics in a way that's impossible for women.

If it's just that, there are women like Maggy Thatcher that went through with it. Women can have charisma and be rough. Hillary Clinton just had very little of it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

If anything, I feel that it's going to be much harder for a woman to obtain the nomination within the republican party.

I feel that you and a lot of other people in this thread such as Drama (the OP) should read about Margaret Thatcher, the legendary Conservative first female Prime Minister of the UK.

Elected in 1979. Also re-elected twice.

Thatcher was an amazing politician, and her gender was irrelevant. And she was first elected before I was even born.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Hillary got heavily derailed by emails. EMAILS. Trump... got away with everything.

Because she allowed him to get away with it. Everyone knew that Trump was horrible. As I pointed out earlier, his likability rating was even lower than hers. Which means that inevitably people that thought he was terrible still turned out to vote for him. So, she wasn't telling anyone anything new by constantly plastering "Do you want your kids to look up to this man" ads on TV. People that are struggling in this country wanted to hear how they were going to be helped. Whether Trump is bullshitting or not, he actually did that. That's not a gender thing. That's an understanding the landscape thing.

I've already said that I think her gender played some role in her loss. But it's impossible to tell how much. With that said, people can't have this both ways. Much of this post election analysis has been about talking about how this is America embracing racism. Then ignore that Obama won the same states that Hillary lost and he did it with more votes than Trump got in those states. Ignore that Hillary lost in some of the same white pockets of the country that Obama won in. Obama was accused of being anti-American, anti-white, anti-Christian, pro-terrorist and so on. During his first run in particularly Republicans would repeatedly "accidentally" call him Osama instead of Obama. In both elections they made sure to call him Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Even though referring to people with their middle names isn't common at all. And yet he whooped McCain's ass and then he turned around and whooped Romney's ass.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I've already said that I think her gender played some role in her loss. But it's impossible to tell how much. With that said, people can't have this both ways. Much of this post election analysis has been about talking about how this is America embracing racism. Then ignore that Obama won the same states that Hillary lost and he did it with more votes than Trump got in those states. Ignore that Hillary lost in some of the same white pockets of the country that Obama won in. Obama was accused of being anti-American, anti-white, anti-Christian, pro-terrorist and so on. During his first run in particularly Republicans would repeatedly "accidentally" call him Osama instead of Obama. In both elections they made sure to call him Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Even though referring to people with their middle names isn't common at all. And yet he whooped McCain's ass and then he turned around and whooped Romney's ass.

 

[IamDodongo]

It's always weird how desperate some people are to say her gender played zero role in the public's perception of her. Be realistic guys.

 

[kitzkozan]

I feel that you and a lot of other people in this thread such as Drama (the OP) should read about Margaret Thatcher, the legendary Conservative first female Prime Minister of the UK.

Elected in 1979. Also re-elected twice.

Thatcher was an amazing politician, and her gender was irrelevant. And she was first elected before I was even born.

Thatcher was truly one of a kind, but it's just another example that you always have exceptions to the rule. She was elected well before the wave of women who reached the highest position of power in numerous countries over the last 10-15 years.

This is more or less what the republican woman who win the nomination will be: a once per generation talent imo.

 

[Manmademan]

It's always weird how desperate some people are to say her gender played zero role in the public's perception of her. Be realistic guys.

we're not saying that.

we're saying that her gender isn't why she lost. Those are two different things.

Race played quite a bit of a role in the public's perception of Obama in 08 and 12. But smart campaigning and knowing how to connect with people overcame the 60 million or so republicans who potentially had racism influence their vote.

As is blindingly clear from the NYT article, Hillary could have easily gone the extra mile as obama did to win- but actively went out of her way not to address white working class voters because she didn't think she needed them.

This is why she lost wisconsin by 30k votes, and pennsylvania by 1%.

"sexism" isn't why democrats stayed home. Democrats stayed home because no one but Trump showed up in Wisconsin during the general election, period.

 

[dramatis]

so...let's talk about just how bad a candidate hillary clinton was.

Hillary and the "sexism" argument can both go to hell as far as I'm concerned. It's indefensible.

What, exactly, does any of this have to do with the topic?

We get it, in your eyes, sexism has nothing to do with how Hillary has been treated over the course of her political career, nor did sexism shape the Hillary Clinton that made the campaign of 2016. Sexism has no effect on the election. Women representing only 20% of the Senate and only about 19% of the House, there's no sexism about that, women are just bad candidates, that's why they don't win. Sexism simply doesn't exist. If Trump were a woman, she would still win over Hillary Clinton, because Hillary Clinton is super shit!

Even at the basest level it's like you are unable to divide observations of the difficulties of women in politics from your incessant need to shit on Hillary Clinton.

If you were a woman, I think you would probably have a wider perspective about the election. But you're not, so sexism is an "indefensible" argument.

 

[Manmademan]

What, exactly, does any of this have to do with the topic?

We get it, in your eyes, sexism has nothing to do with how Hillary has been treated over the course of her political career, nor did sexism shape the Hillary Clinton that made the campaign of 2016. Sexism has no effect on the election. Women representing only 20% of the Senate and only about 19% of the House, there's no sexism about that, women are just bad candidates, that's why they don't win. Sexism simply doesn't exist. If Trump were a woman, she would still win over Hillary Clinton, because Hillary Clinton is super shit!

Even at the basest level it's like you are unable to divide observations of the difficulties of women in politics from your incessant need to shit on Hillary Clinton.

If you were a woman, I think you would probably have a wider perspective about the election. But you're not, so sexism is an "indefensible" argument.

Hey genius- what's the topic of the thread? "Why is it so hard for a woman to become president of the united states."

You want to talk about representation of the house? representation of the senate? go ahead, make the damned thread and talk yourself blue in the face.

The answer to the thread- why is it so hard for a woman- that woman being hillary- to win the office of president?

Because that woman was a CATASTROPHICALLY BAD CANDIDATE. Period. That's it. the "sexism" argument holds no water here.

Had obama run his candidacy in 08 or 12 the way hillary just ran hers, he would have lost. Period. not a doubt in my mind. And you don't need to "be a woman" to see that.

Hillary lost because she was arrogant, overconfident, and decided she didn't need to show up in the rust belt at all, or address working class white voters in SWING STATES unless forced to. Do you expect those people to vote for a candidate that can't be bothered to show up in their state at all? Or are they "sexist" if they feel that the democratic party is ignoring their interests? Which is what she did.

you want to ignore all that and cry sexism, go right ahead, but that argument is bull. This is entirely on hillary herself, not her gender.

 

[Ostinatto]

Not a great experience here in South America.

 

[Raven117]

She didn't lose because she was a women. She ran a horrible "not trump" campaign who outright ignored a variety of states that she thought she would auto win.

Blame is on her and her team, not her vagina.

Imo it is exactly this. She lost not because of a republican ground swell and "anti-women" she lost because she did not make the case to her own party.

Any... And I mean... Any blame outside the DNC and Hillary's campaign is misplaced.

 

[Manmademan]

Imo it is exactly this. She lost not because of a republican ground swell and "anti-women" she lost because she did not make the case to her own party.

Any... And I mean... Any blame outside the DNC and Hillary's campaign is misplaced.

Exactly. Democrats and the DNC need to learn the right lessons from this. Incredible her campaign got as far as it did with that asinine strategy without someone pulling her aside for a "come to jesus" moment.