Aaargh!! Obviously meant “president”, not “present”, in my last paragraph. As far as I know, women are already present among us today! 
I have a hard time keeping track of such things, so let’s pretend I said “voter suppression” or whatever. In any case, Palin wouldn’t have had a prayer.
Are you fucking kidding me? The same Sarah Palin who quit being governor halfway through her term because she got bored and thought a media career would suit her better?
Sarah Palin would be an unmitigated electoral disaster on a scale not seen since 1984. Mondale at least won his home state of Minnnesota. Palin couldn’t do that, she’s reviled in Alaska.
The fact is, Hillary came within a whisker of winning the goddam election. Why did she lose? There are dozens of reasons she lost, and all are true like begbert2 said, because if any of those had gone the other way she would have been pushed over the top.
But the main reason she lost is that she didn’t emulate Obama’s work in 2008 and 2012 of focusing on getting over the hump in the critical states. She won the popular vote, big deal. And she lost by an incredibly slim margin in a couple of states that she thought were safe.
The idea that a woman needs to be perfect while a man can burp and scratch his balls and still win is silly. Yeah, she lost against Donald Trump. Anybody who loses against Donald Trump should hang their head in shame. Ted Cruz, born in Canada, I’m looking at you. Marco Rubio? Jeb? Kasich? And all the rest? Shame on you. You suck. You couldn’t win against Donald Trump, so you suck. It isn’t like the men were beating the crap out of Trump and then he went up against a woman and finally won because Americans don’t trust women. Trump beat everyone.
But if you look at the polls, if Hillary had been up against Rubio or Jeb or any other of the mainstream Republican candidates, she probably would have lost even worse. Nominating Trump was seen as the Republicans throwing away a very winnable election. But Trump somehow pulled it off.
Good luck with that in 2020, because Trump is not going to be the Republican nominee in 2020. He’s much more likely, if he survives impeachment in 2018, to declare victory and go home, because he’s probably not going to be capable of even keeping the Republican nomination. In 2019 when he looks at the poll numbers, he’s going to see humiliating defeat ahead. And if there’s one thing Trump can’t stand, it’s looking like a loser.
I’m amazed at how often this simple fact has to be reiterated here.
“HRC” added for clarification.
And that, too. Hilary did not win the popular vote. She got a plurality, not a majority.
In 2016 the poll numbers said he was headed for a humiliating defeat too, didn’t they? I could dig up a (hilarious) Rachel Maddow video on the subject, if you don’t recall.
I’m not so sure that’s really accurate, since poll numbers as I recall were changing very quickly, though I do recall Nate Silver quite consistently giving him a strong chance.
But how’s he doing on running the most successful presidency in the history of the universe? Is anyone complaining yet about being tired of winning, because there’s just so much winning going on, as promised? Mostly I note that more top officials have quit or been fired than in any other administration I know of, while nothing at all gets done and his popularity sinks to record lows. If this bodes well for a Republican renomination, the party is in even worse shape than I thought.
No, they did not. Not to anyone who was paying attention.
At no point did the polls ever call for a lopsided election.
There was a significant amount of time, including most of Oct 2016 when 538 gave him < 25% chance of winning.
You labelled the more qualified candidate “too abrasive” in a race against Donald Trump (although I do understand that you were not comparing them). Your example - which I think would be applied to any woman candidate - demonstrates both your second point and the OP.
I’m also pinning my hopes on Tammy Duckworth with a prior term or two as VP. Even though it could be as long as ten years away, she would still be a young 59 when she ran.
It does serve to reduce the field of qualified, experienced Democratic candidates.
Lightning striking once doesn’t make lightning a non-rare occurrence.
You are dodging the question. You claimed that female candidates get called out on their temperament and appearance while male candidates get a pass on those.
It was pointed out that Trump has had his temperament and appearance mocked from day one continuing to the present.
You said that was because Trump was ill qualified.
It was asked if being ill-qualified should open a candidate up for insults about temperament and appearance.
You gave the above answer which simply restated your premise in the OP. I would like for you to support your position that male candidates are given a pass on appearance and temperament.
At NO POINT?!? Really?
[QUOTE=Rachel Maddow on 8/15/2016]
And if those are the toss-up states, if you do the math associated with all the electoral votes from all of the states, if they go that way, if they lean Republican and likely Democrat go red, and the lean Democrat and likely Democrat go blue, if you sign those out that way, and then you say that Donald Trump has the best day in the entire world and completely outperforms expectations and he wins all the toss-up states, he wins all five of those states plus that Electoral College vote in Maine that he`s after, he wins all of the toss-ups, which would be insane because nobody wins all the toss-up states, even if Donald Trump did win all the toss-up states, he would still lose. Hillary Clinton is that far ahead right now.
[/QUOTE]
Was Rachel Maddow lying to her viewers? Was she not “paying attention”?
Here is a link to the Rachel Maddow video I quoted above. You’ve really got to watch the video to fully appreciate her smugness.
I’m sorry but that’s the way it looks from here.
A large number of you fellow Americans disagreed with you.
Sorry, I get PTESD (Post-Traumatic-Election Stress Disorder) when I watch stuff like that now.
But President Trump is an outlier among male politicians in terms of both his appearance (e.g., his bizarre dyed combover, his obesity, his weird suits and ties) and his temperament (his long history of deliberately outrageous showboating, his thin-skinned tweetfits, his short-fused attention-seeking, his constant boasting and demands for adulation, etc.). And, as already noted, he doesn’t have much in the way of other salient qualities as a politician to distract from his appearance and temperament, which is also quite unusual for high-ranking public figures.
I think the point of the argument here is that female politicians are much more likely than male ones to get picked on for appearance and temperament issues when they’re not outliers in those areas.
In other words, as a male politician you have to be exceptionally ugly and/or outrageous/weird to get the same levels of superficial shallow criticism that ordinary-looking, articulate, competent female politicians typically receive.
QFT
Yes. The FACT that this stunningly unqualified MAN got as many votes as he did, to me, speaks VOLUMES.
I thought the Republican national convention was seriously disturbing and resembled and actual witch trial.
Another exercise: Switch Trump’s name with Hillary on headlines. Example: Hillary walks out on stage with her five children from three husbands.