Talk Elections

How much did sexism play a role in the election? It still looks like there is a problem with Woman candidates this cycle. You can't deny there are some voter uncomfortable with Woman leading.

On the hand being a woman could of been a plus. There were some voters excited for a woman president.

To blame her loss on sexism would be to excuse the various tactical blunders she made. Given how close the final outcome was, if she had not committed some or all of those tactical blunders, the sexism factor wouldn't have mattered in terms of the outcome (just like how racism wasn't anywhere near enough to prevent Obama from getting elected twice).

no

Her campaign was seriously considering the motto "It's her turn". Imagine a man trying to use the motto "It's his turn".

Ask President McCain and President Romney if racism helped them get to the White House.

It did matter in Michigan where many Muslims (which make up perhaps 3-4% of the vote) didn't turn out for Hillary--enough to tip the state to Trump.  Perhaps a lower than expected support from male Hispanics may have played a role, but I don't think it affected the outcome in any state.

I'm pretty sure they'd vote for a woman rather than vote or enable somebody who has threatened to ban them from entering the U.S and uses dog-whistle Islamophobia.

You might think so, and I am sure that most of them did.  But just enough didn't show up to make the difference.

But yet the two Moslem reps in Congress are both female. And both won in districts that have large  Moslem populations, more so for Tlaib's district.  If Moslems of Arab or African origin didnt vote for Hillary (I dont know whether or not thats true), I suspect it was more because of her eagerness for war in the middle east.

Here's article from WP from September 2016 which described the difficulties Hillary was facing in consolidating the Muslim vote going into that November:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/clinton-is-trying-to-woo-muslim-voters-they-could-make-all-the-difference/2016/09/07/876821f6-6bae-11e6-99bf-f0cf3a6449a6_story.html?utm_term=.4ecd27f7be69

To a degree, sure. But it’s really not something that, alone, her loss should be blamed on.

Her low favorability, in part due to her perceived unlikability and untrustworthiness, was a key cause of her defeat. It's entirely possible, probable even, that sexism helped fuel perceptions of her as unlikable and untrustworthy. However it is very difficult to separate what levels of her unpopularity were caused by sexism or whether it was due to other factors and not an inevitable consequence of sexism. Saying all of her unpopularity was based on sexism would be foolish and probably saying none of it was based on sexism would be foolish too. Perhaps it made enough of a difference for her to lose narrowly instead of winning narrowly. Perhaps her own mistakes were the primary cause but were bigger mistakes due to sexism.

There was a degree of sexism, yes.

Was that the reason she lost?  No.

Sad state of affairs that this question needs a thread and that to answer "yes" is controversial.

I've got about 10 pages of quotes saved from asshats of all political stripes on this very forum spouting sexist drivel about Hillary Clinton. To say that gender has not played a significant role colouring perceptions of Hillary Clinton and increasing the intensity of the hatred levelled towards her is absolutely ridiculous. Talk to the blue-collar unions about their membership's feelings towards Hillary Clinton. The IAFF couldn't even be arsed to endorse her despite her strong record of supporting fire fighters and union rights because its insecure male membership was going ballistic about a shrill woman leading the liberal culture wars.

No one has asked robot Corey Booker about likability. ::)



()

()

()

()

Yes, and it's the fundamental reason she lost.

This.

Sexist attacks that go further back than 2015 surely cost her more than her margin of defeat in MI/PA/WI, but there were bigger factors at play in her loss.

No

Yes.

Yes, at least partially.

Obviously, and almost all women are. All the leftists here saying otherwise because they hate $hillary are either just dishonest or terrible progressives.

I doubt it. Is there any evidence for that?

Sure, some men (and women?) are sexist and hence probably didn't vote for her. But you can argue that there are women (and men?) that voted for her because they felt it was time for woman to become a president (so basically the case of a positive discrimination) even though all other things being equal they would vote for Trump.

So the question remains: is there any evidence that the negative discrimination outweighed the positive one? As I said, I doubt it. I think the difference was insignificant.

There may have been an element of it, but to pin her loss on sexism is ignoring many of her flaws as a candidate.

Obviously. To what extent it impacted the results is up for debate, but the fact that it existed is an objective fact.

No, she was a victim of her own bad campaign. Why would people vote for someone when she calls them a basket of deplorables?

This, plus there are more female voters than male voters.

It's a little hard to consider someone a victim of "sexism" when a mere 18 years earlier, she was facilitating a whispering campaign against women accusing her husband of all sorts of sexual misconduct as a combination of "nuts and sluts".  It makes it a little hard when, 18 years later, you come out with a statement of how all women presenting themselves as victims should be believed, and believed pretty much unconditionally.  It didn't help Hillary when people actually brought this up during the campaign.

As Hillary Clinton is less able to take responsibility for her own shortcomings than Donald Trump is (and that's really saying something), her snatching defeat from the jaws of victory shouldn't shock anyone.

Women can also participate in sexism.


This has nothing to do with the original question of "was Hillary a victim of sexism." History isn't zero sum.

Hillary's being female was a plus.  An unqualfied plus.  And she squandered it with her own persona, which is rather nauseating and self-absorbed. 

"Buh my Trump!"  Trump was seen as giving up benefits to himself for the sake of his country by running for President.  How true this is can certainly be debated, but that narrative has some credibility and certainly got some traction.  Hillary's self-absorption is a fact of her life; it's always about HER in her mind, and it's always HER turn.  This is a narrative that she fostered, consciously and unconsciously, and it's not something that has helped her.  People don't care that it's HER turn; they wonder when THEIR turn is coming. 

Yes, although there are MANY other, more significant reasons for why she lost.

I also don't think it's any coincidence in 2018 that two female Senators from red states lost re-election (Heitkamp and Air Claire) while two male Senators from red states won by a few points (Tractor Jon and Manchin)

Citation needed.


Penalizing women and rewarding men for trying to fulfill personal ambition (i.e., embracing a "persona") is such a well documented misogynistic phenomenon that at this point it's basically a trope. Good god Fuzzy you're proving the point and you're not even realizing it.

Whatever Trump said, or didn't say, in the 2016 campaign, he didn't say "It's my turn!".  That's an appeal that is repulsive to most Americans when it comes to their political leaders because it smacks of monarchy and not a republican form of government. 

Sexism didn't do Hillary in.  Elitism did.

Hillary was never running on "it's my turn!" That's a smear that was able to stick because society, at large, still does not know how to process a woman seeking higher leadership positions and not administering to a caretaker/supporter role. It wasn't substantiated by anything other than people's pre-existing conceptions of her. Nobody is arguing that Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden is running a 2020 platform based on "it's my turn," despite being in very similar positions.

I think there is real merit to the argument that (perceived) elitism was what did Hillary in. But denying any influence of misogyny is laughable.

Is it "misogyny" to suggest that her "Girl Power" campaign (e. g. the "Fight Song" ad) was poorly received?  That her constant references to "the condition of women and girls" was insulting to the parents of boys (not to mention that the condition of boys in America has deteriorated significantly but seems to never get a peep of interest from, truthfully, either major party)?

Maybe? I don't remember this being an issue at all. Either way a single instance of criticism not being misogynistic does not disprove the larger point.


Not sure what the point you are trying to make here is. Gender criticism is not so zero sum that highlighting the (very real and contemporary) issues women face is obviously not of direct detriment to men. Constant references to "the condition of women and girls" IS a pervasive issue that needs to be addressed - it being unfamiliar to you is perhaps more of a commentary on the political discourse you are used to hearing than it is on Clinton's campaign.

And yes before I get bombarded with anecdotes I am a straight cis male who suffers from very real depression and inhabits a work environment that is 2/3 female and gender inequality is still a very real issue. Occasionally you hear a complaint that is dumb and unfounded but on the whole despite my condition I can acknowledge that these concerns are real without it being at the expense of my own well being.

Was Lil' Marco a victim of hyperhidrosisphobia?


()



It is probably was a bigger factor for Rubio's loss  than mythological sexism towards Clinton  :v

Here's a question: if Biden wins in 2020 (primary and general) will you guys admit Hillary was a victim of sexism? This question is mainly targeted at Sanders supporters.

How would that prove shlt with an unpopular Trump?

How the heck would that prove anything? By just about every single source, Biden was consistently to Hillary's left during Obama's presidency (especially on foreign policy), which *should* make him less objectionable to Sanders supporters.

And there's also the fact that Hillary's campaign assumed they would win and was perceived as saying 'we dont need your vote anyway'. People aren't going to assume a Trump loss this time.

Yes.

Trump was unpopular in 2016 as well

Was he more popular than he was now?  I would wager an incumbent Trump is actually at more of a disadvantage than an "outsider" Trump running against a Democrat after 8 years of Democratic rule.  Hillary was pretty unpopular, herself, and it was not just because she was a woman.

If Hillary was a straight white male and Trump was a black transgender pansexual, I'd still support Trump over Hillary and a lot of people feel the same way. Sexism is just an excuse for a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign 

Lol, you and your cohort would never support a black transgender pansexual, and to suggest otherwise is totally disingenuous.

Stop acting like you know me. I am part of the LGBT community and half-black. I have gotten more hate from liberals for my views then hate from Republicans for me being bi-sexual or black and I know a lot of conservatives that would vote for a gay conservative/ black conservative etc..   

With this attitude, you'll keep losing the support of people you could otherwise have. Sad! You seem to treat anyone with a non-red (or right wing) avatar as someone who must be sexist/racist/homophobic/whateverphobic. Do you say this type of stuff to those with differing views IRL? Or do you surround yourself with only those that agree with you politically?

The point is, no one will say, and few will even realize, that gendered perceptions played a major role in how they viewed Hillary Clinton and responded to her candidacy. Progressives make an effort to engage in considering how the intersection of identity influenced things whereas people on the right tend not to want to have that conversation—Venice Italy does it himself when he throws out a pretty unlikely example just for theatrics and then asserts, basically, that people wouldn’t see or care about these differences and that invoking the “isms” is “an excuse.” That’s total willful blindness.

And since, as I’ve said, people don’t tend to knowingly act out of discriminatory instincts, by the time the rough and tumble was over, these folks would just “have a bad feeling” about this person and stay home. VeniceItaly could very well be an exception, but when you cast your lot in with ignorant bigots and racists, you reap what you sow.

Call it a bubble, but I do not choose to surround myself with people who support politicians who debase and put down groups of marginalized people. If you vote GOP, that’s what you are doing whether it’s your intention or not. And it’s way too common that these people make excuses for themselves and others for the side effects of “what ends up happening” to minorities than actually taking responsibility and making a change. “The people I’d otherwise have” don’t stick around when you actually demand what is required for equitability. My aunt isn’t a racist until someone gently asks her to reconsider using the term “cotton pickin’.” Then she’s a victim and how dare anybody suggest that she’s ever done anything unthoughtful towards people of colour! I’ve lost interest—they don’t want change because they frankly don’t care. They’d rather be comfortable.

Which brings me to the actual point. The idea that the Republican Party would ever nominate a black trans pansexual is in itself totally disingenuous—that is more what I was getting at. I don’t apologize for making that claim. I don’t hang around people who think sexism is an imaginary “excuse.” Sue me.

You wouldn't find the percentage of sexists in a room by asking everyone "would you vote for a hypothetical perfect dream candidate who just so happens to be a woman?"

While I agree, leaving it up to the left's discretion is not exactly a satisfying method, either. ;)

Nobody thought about her gender when voting against her. Also didn't she call african-american youths "super predators" back in the 90s? People thought about her flip-flopping, her demeaning comment towards middle american working class, her email scandal. Sexism played no significant role and ill say it again, sexism is an excuse for her running a terrible campaign and excuse for the fact she is a terrible person. More people voted for her because she was a woman rather than people voting against her because she is a woman. Personally I would be ashamed if our first female president was someone as horrendous and opportunistic as she was and I'm glad she won't be our first female president. 

It didn't help, but she also ran a terrible campaign. The result was so close it is theoretically possible that a male who ran an identical campaign could have won, just as Clinton would have still won while being a woman if she'd run a better campaign. Namely if she hadn't been over confident and neglected the rust belt.

The problem with this question is we're talking about a national politician. If Joe the Democrat from Ohio changed his vote or stayed home in 2016 entirely based on her gender then that could be construed as "being a victim of sexism". However, for every Joe there was a Becky who voted for Hillary due to gender as well. So overall it either balanced out or was a net benefit for her anyway. It did not cost her the election and there she wasn't a victim of any organised sexist campaign.

Clinton lost because her hawkishness, her decades of political baggage and her comments regarding Coal mining and "deplorables" were successfully exploited by the Trump campaign. The people who are spouting the "muh sexist" bs are the usual suspects who are using this as an excuse to vent about the oh so evil and horrible, knuckle dragging, Middle American whites.

Press X to doubt.

Yes.

All those “She’s a c***” shirts that popped up at Trump rallies have to count for something.

No, in fact Hillary Clinton was handed more things without having earned them than any other politician in recent memory;

- Used her Husband's status to sit on numerous corporate boards while he was governor of Arkansas despite limited experience.

- was given a leading role in the failed healthcare attempt by her husband despite having no qualifications whatsoever to do so.

- Carpetbagged to a state she had no connections to whatsoever after the New York Democratic party pushed aside more qualified candidates for Senate.

- Despite having few if any accomplishments in her years as a senator, was recruited to run for president based entirely off of nostalgia from Bill's presidency, after blowing a huge lead was given SOS by Obama to get her support after a brutal primary.

- After a tenure as SOS that included far more photo-ops than actual accomplishments (unless you consider the Russia reset and the sale of large scale Uranium stocks to Russia to be accomplishments) had the DNC rig the primary for her in 2016.

- Despite having much of the media, big tech, and the business establishment firmly behind her, she manages to blow a 15 point general election lead to a former reality TV star

I don't know about nationally, but her being a woman was able to save her in some areas where I lived in the minds of reluctant voters because they wanted to vote for a female

Yes and no. As Sanchez said her "bitchy" personality was the main reason but a bitchy man can get away with it. A bitchy or crazy women does horrible in US Politics. See bachmann and Tenney .

Name a woman who does not get called “bitchy” when they enter politics. ::)

I can hardly hear whatever person in the whole country is whispering about all of the women in politics. But I doubt that Susan Collins has ever been described as bitchy. Or Nancy Kassebaum. There's Tina Smith, although she's fairly new to politics. But again, I can't even begin to describe how many specific women in politics about whom I have heard anything derogatory said.

In a way I would argue she might have benefited from being a woman.

Pretty much any Democratic woman in politics is viewed as a bitch or a whore (just look at the reaction to Kyrsten Sinema’s boots).

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-heffernan-ocasio-cortez-and-misogyny-20190104-story.html

I do not believe so. Had she campaigned more in the rust belt and/or chose a running mate from there (ex. Sherrod Brown), she would likely be our president today.

I think a lot of the sexism was from her own campaign, who cautioned her to be unemotional, unfazed, cold, and fact based. Can't show emotion! Can't show anger! Can't fight back.

It was a terrible miscalculation. Trump ended up looking like an embattled underdog speaking truth to power and getting dismissed for it.

Bump

Now that we have primary results in comparison to 2016, raising this question again is fair. Let this sink in: Biden won tons of voters, who backed Sanders last time in protest. Biden carried many rural and suburban counties in MI, MO, IL and WA, that HRC badly lost in 2016. A significant junk of these voters went over to Trump in November, giving him the election. I wonder why? It can't be about ideology, because Biden is politically pretty close to Clinton and both are considered "establishment career politicians". Their biggest difference seems to be foreign policy, with Biden being less hawkish. For sure, HRC had problems of her own like 25 years of GOP smears, but comparing her 2016 primary results and voter coalition to Biden makes me wonder how much sexism indeed played a role in her loss.

You also can't discount that the 25 years of GOP smears were theselves a product of sexism.

No.