Can you show me your cogent political advice that you offered to Clinton’s campaign in summer 2016, instead of showing your ability to Monday quarterback in 2022?
Yes, and the same year of the Watergate break-in, the release of the Free to Be You and Me album – even more directly influential (seriously) on then-young minds that women are as capable as men, and should be treated with respect.
Clinton lost for a lot of reasons, and sure, misogyny was one of them.
When was the last time a democrat won the White House after a two-term (or multi-term) democratic president? Harry Truman. It’s a hard road with a fickle electorate.
Why did we get Trump? The republicans ran two establishment guys, McCain and Romney, and they lost to a charismatic democrat. The lesson wasn’t run a better candidate, it was win at all costs. Eight years of peace and prosperity enraged the rubes simply because of who was in the WH. It was a backlash and yes, a whitelash. Being a far better qualified candidate really didn’t matter: see Al Gore.
The only reasonable conclusion is half of our country is batshit insane. They wanted vengeance, and they got it. They’re not motivated by the economy or international relations. Above all, they want non-whites and women kept in their place. Sure, they’re racist and misogynist, but far more problematic, they’re batshit insane. And were stuck with them.
The even bigger problem: the electoral college. Clinton should have coasted to victory, but we’re stuck with antiquated system that is the enemy of democracy. The ‘founding fathers’ were oh so brilliant, eh?
From their own writings, they did not want democracy which they considered mob rule. We The People was We The Free White Male Educated Landowning Christian People.
The “prosperity” part was (is) rather circumstantially subjective. A vast fraction of the country were/are quite marginal, and it is almost trivial to manipulate their frustration into outright anger which then can be directed against their own best interests. The Chicago School has been working this hand for decades.
I’ve seen Hillary on the campaign stage, on the book tour stage, and in person during a presidential visit in Africa. The difference between her campaign persona and her demeanor in the other two venues is really striking. Person-to-person, she is charming and personable, someone you’d like to be friends with. Same with her book tour presence. But her hard-core campaign persona can be off-putting, particularly in debates, and in the past her advisors have tried to convince her to take the edge off a bit and to inject more of her natural warmth into her delivery. Honestly, she seemed incapable of doing that, possibly because of all the attacks on her in the past. I think she would have been an outstanding president, just as she was an outstanding senator. I remember that election night vividly, as several of us were gathered together to celebrate our first woman in the White House. I will never forget the shock and disbelief as the results came in.
But it’s also true that affluent whites strongly supported Trump. It’s not that economic desperation drove them into his arms.
Yep, I threw my phone across the room, and pulled the covers over my head. The memory gives me the creeps.
I went to bed early, in order to keep a tiny bit of hope until the morning.
I took a class in business negotiation once. It is a trait of many people that they will walk away from a profitable deal if another party would make a larger profit from the deal. They’d rather receive nothing if through taking the deal, the other party gets an “unfair” share.
In the case of the “affluent whites” it wasn’t enough that they prospered, they needed those people to not prosper.
I once asked my father if he would take $20 if it meant that someone else would get $20. He asked who it was. I assured him it would not be going to terrorists or criminal organizations, but other than that, he wouldn’t know.
He was adamant that he wouldn’t take the deal unless he knew who it was going to.
I finally said, “It’ll go to the Democratic Party.” He said, “In that case, no, I wouldn’t take the deal.” I said, “Fine with me, I guess I’m donating $40 to the Democratic Party.”
What did he say to that?
He thought it wasn’t fair as I didn’t say that was part of the deal. To be honest, I hadn’t thought of it when I first proposed the thought experiment, and came up with the idea of donating to an organization he would oppose, and donating the total of the offer to them in the event that he refused on the fly.
I simply said, “You said you wouldn’t take the money, so you don’t get to say how I should spend it.” And then we fumed in silence for most of the rest of the ride home.
I smoked a big fat blunt of really good weed and didn’t get high at all. Not a good night.
Lots of people say their opinions about Hillary Clinton are not based on misogyny, but to hear them talk, it sure feels misogynistic to me. They find nits that they don’t even look for in male politicians.
My shortcuts to figure out someone’s politics are simple. If they’re positive about Trump, they’re racist. If they’re negative about Hillary, they’re sexist. They’ll have to work to convince me otherwise. It’s not subtle, but it works well enough for me.
These posts succinctly describe my feelings as well.
Also every campaign shared her problem to some degree–she had people in the other party demonizing her, making her out to be the worst person on the planet, the Devil herself. But so does every candidate, and to withdraw on that basis --“People hate me!!”-- is to indulge in the most self-pitying reason to drop out ever. If she did that, at any stage, the word would be “Only a woman would have paid the slightest attention to that crap.”
You know, to doubt that she lost due to misogyny on some serious level strikes me as one of the more misogynistic ideas of all.
That’s remarkable. I’m negative about Hillary–and Bill, and Gore, and Kerry, and Obama, and Biden–for the same reason: they’re too conservative for my tastes. I’m positive about Warren and Ocasio-Cortez and Abrams and Sanders because they work to advance the leftist policies that I believe will make the world better. I think your test is entirely too unsubtle.
It’s not remarkable to me at all. If someone says “I disagree with her on X, Y, and Z policy positions,” the that’s one thing.
That’s a disagreement. That’s not dislike, which usually implies something about that person’s personality and character, rather than just a disagreement over opinions.
And disliking a woman because of her personality or personal physical traits or mannerisms—especially along the lines of “I can’t put my finger on it, but she just rubs me the wrong way” or “her voice is annoying” or “she seems like a person that I wouldn’t like”— assuming that misogyny is involved makes perfect sense to me.
I guess it depends on what being “negative about Hillary” means.