I think those two posts are a good brief summary of a major part of the reason. The latter sums up the fact that we are still a society where an aggressive, assertive man is admired, while an exactly equally predisposed woman gets nasty derogatory names assigned to her, like “bitch” and “shrew”. This was very helpful to Republicans who needed to knock her down because her political strengths and experience were perceived as a real threat.
Compounding the problem is that voters aren’t very bright and tend to judge candidates on superficial qualities, and Hillary just didn’t have a lot of charisma. She was so politically cautious in her speech that she came across as mendacious and calculating (though she really blew it with the “deplorables” comment). In contrast to Obama, who had a smile so warm and a laugh so genuine that it could melt ice a mile away, Hillary had a laugh that sounded like a panicked hen. She just wasn’t very likeable if judged on superficial qualities, and that really sealed her fate. Dismissing her as insincere and calculating, voters instead elected the most egregious conman of all time to ever infest the White House.
Well, what I heard during the election was that they were against incremental change, as incremental change wasn’t good enough, and that they wanted to burn it all down and build on the ashes.
My response to that was of course that anyone who wants to burn it down and rebuild from the ashes has never built anything before, and has never been in a fire before.
Ask them what “rebuilding” they’re seeing. Are they thrilled with their awesome new health care plans, which I understand were going to be “something terrific”? All I see is a lot of burning down and destruction, and not even the remotest idea of a plan for rebuilding anything or capability for doing it. I’m also seeing a Supreme Court increasingly populated with far-right imbeciles, and state abortion laws now seeking to overturn Roe v Wade. There is no rebuilding that’s going to happen now or in any foreseeable future; what’s going to happen is a tremendously costly program of repair and restoration when adults hopefully start running the place in 2021.
If you’ve learned from this thread, you’ve learned the wrong things. Take note that much like many of its kind, what you have in this thread are caricatures of what folks think the other side thinks. Maybe inquire with 2016 Sanders voters why they preferred him over her.
Simply attributing her disfavor with misogyny is lazy.
Not her disfavor – but the incredible white-hot hatred that goes far beyond the typical dislike that conservatives have for liberals and Democrats. That’s what I think it’s reasonable to attribute to misogyny – just like birtherism and the other nonsense that went beyond typical dislike for liberals against Obama can reasonably be attributed to racism. Not everyone who dislikes Hillary Clinton is a misogynist, but those who really, really hate her and were influenced to that hatred by Rush Limbaugh and similar, likely have been strongly influenced by misogyny.
Basically, do you agree that Rush Limbaugh (and others like him) has put out a highly misogynistic picture of Hillary Clinton over the years? If so, do you agree that he has had strong influence with millions of conservatives? If so, then that’s pretty much all I’m arguing.
That’s easy, judges, judges, judges. They want activist judges to protect their guns and outlaw abortion, and they are more than willing to invoke misogyny, as well as racism and other forms of hatred, to get their way. They don’t have to be misogynists themselves, in fact, I suspect, many are not. They just pander to the misogynists for political points.
Nothing else matters, no matter how the world burns.
Apologies for triggering you! I’ll certainly keep in mind that you’re incapable of reasonably evaluating my posts in the future.
I guess there’s no point in discussing things like misogyny and racism with regards to attitudes about public figures, then. Obviously these things are inscrutable mysteries that will remain enigmas forever. No point in trying to, say, use our brains to explore these things.
I don’t think anyone explicitly asserted that misogyny was the sole explanation for Hillary’s problems. I certainly didn’t, and provided other explanations. But the general theme underlying all of them is that voters were being superficial and not acting on a well-informed rational basis. If you believe they were, then you have to believe that they chose as their president the person who was intellectually and morally best equipped to lead their country. Do you think they did that?
I wonder if — and I don’t mean that rhetorically, I mean I’m genuinely wondering, because I truly don’t know how big the overlap is — there’s been a study of how many folks would poll as never being willing to support Hillary Clinton, and who voted for McCain/Palin (possibly while saying, hey, I’m maybe not 100% on McCain; but, wow, Palin, she’s solidly on the right side of issues that sure matter to me).
I’m sure there are lots of such folks, but I don’t see how this would necessarily rule out misogyny. There are lots of racists who like or would even vote for certain specific black people; similarly lots of misogynists might like or even vote for certain specific women. My point is just that folks like Rush Limbaugh dominated the national media conversation about Hillary Clinton for many years, and the message they were pushing was misogynistic, and such a message with millions of devoted listeners is likely to have some sort of resonance.
I never listened to Rush but I do know that Clinton pushed the idea of “it takes a village”. She is vehemently anti gun. She pushed for greater governmental involvement with health care. She has had problems with the first amendment, wanting to ban violent video games. I mean I have always been opposed to Clinton. I’d be opposed to anyone who held her policy views.
Opposition to Clinton is often characterized as misogynistic. It’s a given that motivated some people, but defaulting to that is just lazy. There’s a ton from her to be opposed to. But it all started with her nannyistic arrogant BS about taking a village crap.
It is 90% how dangerous that person is to the GOP. Hillary was very dangerous, was winning, so the Kremlin and Karl rove and co went into overdrive making shit up and stirring up hate. Fake news, lies, half-truths, exaggerations. The bernie bros happily passed along the Kremlins lies.
Pelosi was the second most dangerous dem, and much hate fake news was directed at her, and it’s still ongoing.
Currently with Biden in the lead, he’s the preferred fake news and target. Bernie Bros helping the GOP out, just like four years ago. For example, Joe is the “go to guy” on capital Hill for eulogies, he was asked to give one for Thurmond. Joe obviously struggled hard to come up with some good that that old racist did, but he found a few, and gave a decent eulogy, as any decent human being would. Biden is being attacked for that as a “friend of Thurmond” and a “friend of racism”, even right her on this MB, even tho what he did is what any decent human being would do.
And so it goes.
Whoever is a threat is reviled. The 40& or so of the public who are GOP respond kneejerkingly by hating, along with too many independents and progressives. The GOP is very good at this, with the help of the Слу́жба вне́шней разве́дки Российской Федерации, aka the Russian CIA.
First on your list. Oh lord, how dare she… "It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us is a book published in 1996 by First Lady of the United StatesHillary Rodham Clinton. In it, Clinton presents her vision for the children of America. She focuses on the impact individuals and groups outside the family have, for better or worse, on a child’s well-being, and advocates a society which meets all of a child’s needs."
Have you read the book? Or are you angry at the right wing shortened bumper sticker interpretation?
It wasn’t misogyny for a lot of people, it was the fact that she was neither elected nor appointed, but merely the First Lady, and that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.
In a lot of people’s minds, the First Lady has a fairly well defined role, but being a senior policy advisor and political operator is NOT one of them.
That put a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths, and then her defense of Bill Clinton during the whole Lewinsky business cemented in a lot of people’s minds that she wasn’t there as Bill’s partner and wife, but someone who was using Bill as a stepping stone to political office.
And that was further reinforced by the sort of reverse-carpetbagging Senate race she ran in New York, where they literally bought a house to establish residence in order for her to run, but never really actually you know, lived in New York, since she ran for office while she was still First Lady.
It paints a picture of someone who is laser-focused on her own ambitions, and not someone who was interested in public service or anything else. A lot of people don’t like that in men, but they’re chauvinistic enough to HATE it in women.
