Sexism is the sole reason Hillary lost

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People shouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman, but there's no denying that she is held to a much higher standard than the males running against her. She had to be perfect; just like everyone expects black to be perfect. If she did half the shit that Trump, or even Bernie did she wouldn't have gotten that far. There's also no denying that she lost many votes, soley for being a woman.

Before you accuse me of bias, the sand held true for Sarah Palin.

Yes, but here's the thing that people like Barack Obama have known all along. You have to work twice as hard. She didn't. It's as simple as that. She was completely complacent because she knew she was the better political candidate, she had more experience in all fields of knowledge, she was smarter, she was more articulate, she had bigger donor numbers, she was the favorable candidate. She let all of that get to her head and she coasted. Do you think Barack Obama got to be President twice with a 10,000,000 vote lead over McCain just because he was the better candidate? Hell no. She should have known that and she should have worked her ass off.

Instead she:

- Dialed down campaign add runs
- Didn't step it up in key states
- Laughed at and mocked his antics on social media
- Didn't distance herself from staff that core constituents objected to
- Spent more time with donors than with blue-collar voters

Oh, so Hillary had to work her ass off? Did Trump? Hardly. He's a cult of personality. I didn't say it was the sole reason. However, EVERYONE is blaming it on other factors - not even accounting for sexism. A woman will never get to the White House if we don't acknowledge this.

Further, look at Obama's personality. He's magnetic. Are we only to have magnetic types in the office? I think that's folly. Hillary said herself that she wasn't a good campaigner. She is a policy wonk and believes in public service. I really think we need to examine this. Bush was your neighbor. Joe Biden you can have a drink with. Hillary is shrill and cold. Even Bill, for all his philandering, comes off better.

A) Sure there was sexism but the HRC supporters who think that's the only reason are being unrealistic. Just look at the number of female voters she lost and tell me their all misogynists. Please.
B) Yes, Obama was magnetic and to be first of something that's what you need. You need someone who can win a crowd, you need someone who is smarter than everyone else, you need someone who is approachable.

Basically to be the first to step on the moon you need to be the best you can be. Donald Trump is just *another* in a long line of old white men. You want to be the first black president? You want to be the first woman president? You want to be first Jewish president? You have to rise above the hurdle of being what you are and surpass that in the populace's eyes so that you are unbeatable. You don't rest on your laurels.

She lost because she thought she had this election in the bag. Hubris, pride, whatever you want to call it. End of story.

So let me get this straight. Women and minirities need to aim higher? You are proving my point. Hillary was smarter than many - she knew policy inside out. And, to prove my point...niw that we've had a black president get in the door, future black men can relax a bit now, like white men, on their way in?! Yeah, NO! Obama didn't have any scandals because he's a great guy - but he had to be perfect. The bar is higher. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge this?

If Hillary were like Barack Obama, she would have won the first time. She is a policy wonk and smarter than many but many people do not like her. You can't create charisma. Either it have it or you don't and she don't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. women didn't like her either.

Is sexism only a man thing? That is so insulting. There were slaves helping their masters.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't argue that a woman needs to aim higher or be "better" to win the presidency. Both red and blue states all across America have now elected female governors and senators of both parties. Collectively that tells me the country is very capable of voting for a woman for the presidency. And it sort of did given that HRC won the popular vote.

Hillary was just a lousy candidate. She failed to resonate with working class voters (ironically given that in 2008 it was working class white voters who helped her a lot in the primaries against Obama). But her arrogance over the emails and the Clinton Foundation fundraising (which both happened since 2008) badly hurt her. As did her failure to campaign sufficiently in the upper midwestern states (she only won Minnesota by 40,000 votes and this is the home of Amy Klobuchar!). The perception that the Democratic party was stiffing everyone else to clear the way for her also badly hurt her image.

Any male candidate who behaved as she did would have been clobbered. And likely much more worse because Hillary did retain sufficient support from a segment of women who were dedicated to getting the first woman to the WH regardless of who she was, and fear/hatred of Donald Trump. Had there been a more moderate or reasonable Republican candidate like Kasich of Ohio, it would have never been this close for Hillary, let alone winning the popular vote outright.

[Anonymous]

I just don't understand who millennials and minorities didn't turn out to vote for a 70 year old white woman who got rich giving speeches to Goldman Sachs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People shouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman, but there's no denying that she is held to a much higher standard than the males running against her. She had to be perfect; just like everyone expects black to be perfect. If she did half the shit that Trump, or even Bernie did she wouldn't have gotten that far. There's also no denying that she lost many votes, soley for being a woman.

Before you accuse me of bias, the sand held true for Sarah Palin.

Yes, but here's the thing that people like Barack Obama have known all along. You have to work twice as hard. She didn't. It's as simple as that. She was completely complacent because she knew she was the better political candidate, she had more experience in all fields of knowledge, she was smarter, she was more articulate, she had bigger donor numbers, she was the favorable candidate. She let all of that get to her head and she coasted. Do you think Barack Obama got to be President twice with a 10,000,000 vote lead over McCain just because he was the better candidate? Hell no. She should have known that and she should have worked her ass off.

Instead she:

- Dialed down campaign add runs
- Didn't step it up in key states
- Laughed at and mocked his antics on social media
- Didn't distance herself from staff that core constituents objected to
- Spent more time with donors than with blue-collar voters

Oh, so Hillary had to work her ass off? Did Trump? Hardly. He's a cult of personality. I didn't say it was the sole reason. However, EVERYONE is blaming it on other factors - not even accounting for sexism. A woman will never get to the White House if we don't acknowledge this.

A woman will get to the White House, just not that woman.

I no longer believe this. Hillary was as qualified a politician as you're going to get. Still and all, she continues to get shit for being "cold and shrill" unlike the magnetic Obama. When she gave her concession speech people on THIS BOARD were saying "she's so soft and maternal... I could have voted for THIS Hillary." Think of how freaking tough this woman hadto be to run the DC gauntlet the last 20+ years. She easily has to be 3x ballsier, tougher and braver than the men to get where she has. But that's not viewed as strength because she's a woman. It's viewed as being calculating and cold and shrill and robotic and inhuman.

I do not believe the us is ready to give a qualified woman a fair shake at this office. Not after Tuesday and specifically not after how people reacted to her loss.

[Anonymous]

HRC is a pathological liar. Period.

[Anonymous]

Hillary was extremely good at running the Clinton machine that stacked the odds against all her opponents. She was ruthless, she was brutal, she was arrogant. She was cold and distant. Those were all reasons why she lost. A male demonstrating everything she did would have also been clobbered by his opponents. Successful politicians of the past were certainly ruthless but they softened that with other public personas and virtues that appealed to voters (fair or not). Hillary didn't have any.

Like Mitt Romney in 2012, Hillary was now viewed as out of touch with ordinary voters, which was hardly helped by her arrogance in handling the emails and the grubby Clinton foundation fundraising). If you're perceived as out of touch, you will lose.

Anonymous wrote:

I no longer believe this. Hillary was as qualified a politician as you're going to get. Still and all, she continues to get shit for being "cold and shrill" unlike the magnetic Obama. When she gave her concession speech people on THIS BOARD were saying "she's so soft and maternal... I could have voted for THIS Hillary." Think of how freaking tough this woman hadto be to run the DC gauntlet the last 20+ years. She easily has to be 3x ballsier, tougher and braver than the men to get where she has. But that's not viewed as strength because she's a woman. It's viewed as being calculating and cold and shrill and robotic and inhuman.

I do not believe the us is ready to give a qualified woman a fair shake at this office. Not after Tuesday and specifically not after how people reacted to her loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:HRC is a pathological liar. Period.

That's really so different from every other politician.

Oh wait no it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People shouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman, but there's no denying that she is held to a much higher standard than the males running against her. She had to be perfect; just like everyone expects black to be perfect. If she did half the shit that Trump, or even Bernie did she wouldn't have gotten that far. There's also no denying that she lost many votes, soley for being a woman.

Before you accuse me of bias, the sand held true for Sarah Palin.

Yes, but here's the thing that people like Barack Obama have known all along. You have to work twice as hard. She didn't. It's as simple as that. She was completely complacent because she knew she was the better political candidate, she had more experience in all fields of knowledge, she was smarter, she was more articulate, she had bigger donor numbers, she was the favorable candidate. She let all of that get to her head and she coasted. Do you think Barack Obama got to be President twice with a 10,000,000 vote lead over McCain just because he was the better candidate? Hell no. She should have known that and she should have worked her ass off.

Instead she:

- Dialed down campaign add runs
- Didn't step it up in key states
- Laughed at and mocked his antics on social media
- Didn't distance herself from staff that core constituents objected to
- Spent more time with donors than with blue-collar voters

Oh, so Hillary had to work her ass off? Did Trump? Hardly. He's a cult of personality. I didn't say it was the sole reason. However, EVERYONE is blaming it on other factors - not even accounting for sexism. A woman will never get to the White House if we don't acknowledge this.

TO the contrary. the more you emphasize "sexism" the more you are calling people shitheads. That's not a good campaign strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And that is a fact no one can dispute.

OP, I do believe you need some schooling on fact and opinion.
Sexism is NOT the reason for her loss. Hell, she even blames it on Comey.
There were plenty of reasons she lost, the top one being she didn’t get enough votes.
And, that was because she was a weak candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People shouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman, but there's no denying that she is held to a much higher standard than the males running against her. She had to be perfect; just like everyone expects black to be perfect. If she did half the shit that Trump, or even Bernie did she wouldn't have gotten that far. There's also no denying that she lost many votes, soley for being a woman.

Before you accuse me of bias, the sand held true for Sarah Palin.

Yes, but here's the thing that people like Barack Obama have known all along. You have to work twice as hard. She didn't. It's as simple as that. She was completely complacent because she knew she was the better political candidate, she had more experience in all fields of knowledge, she was smarter, she was more articulate, she had bigger donor numbers, she was the favorable candidate. She let all of that get to her head and she coasted. Do you think Barack Obama got to be President twice with a 10,000,000 vote lead over McCain just because he was the better candidate? Hell no. She should have known that and she should have worked her ass off.

Instead she:

- Dialed down campaign add runs
- Didn't step it up in key states
- Laughed at and mocked his antics on social media
- Didn't distance herself from staff that core constituents objected to
- Spent more time with donors than with blue-collar voters

Oh, so Hillary had to work her ass off? Did Trump? Hardly. He's a cult of personality. I didn't say it was the sole reason. However, EVERYONE is blaming it on other factors - not even accounting for sexism. A woman will never get to the White House if we don't acknowledge this.

A woman will get to the White House, just not that woman.

I no longer believe this. Hillary was as qualified a politician as you're going to get. Still and all, she continues to get shit for being "cold and shrill" unlike the magnetic Obama. When she gave her concession speech people on THIS BOARD were saying "she's so soft and maternal... I could have voted for THIS Hillary." Think of how freaking tough this woman hadto be to run the DC gauntlet the last 20+ years. She easily has to be 3x ballsier, tougher and braver than the men to get where she has. But that's not viewed as strength because she's a woman. It's viewed as being calculating and cold and shrill and robotic and inhuman.

I do not believe the us is ready to give a qualified woman a fair shake at this office. Not after Tuesday and specifically not after how people reacted to her loss.

I agree. I doubt Warren could win even though she's eminently qualified and should appeal to people who are angry and scared about the future.

"I'll vote for a woman just not THAT woman" is a moving target and frankly a load of bullshit. Warren would also be held to the same impossible standards. She's vowed to work with this administration but not to tolerate bigotry. Who's to say that the same "anyone but Hillary" people won't, if Warren ever gets close to the presidency, suddenly demur with statements like well Donald sucked and she tried to work with him, she's so cold, she's an insider, whatever. Not tolerating bigotry will be spun as encouraging all of Mexico to come here and settle right in your hometown. Plus Harvard! East coast elite! I don't vote with my vaginaaaaaaa. Meanwhile the Nugent / Duggar ticker just barely wins, but no, it couldn't have anything to do with misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HRC is a pathological liar. Period.

That's really so different from every other politician.

Oh wait no it's not.

Yes, she's VERY different.
Remember that 2/3 of America can't trust a congenital liar.

[Anonymous]

I could have supported Elizabeth Dole in her day. Someone like that.
I wonder if the strong Hilary supporters would vote for a conservative/Republican woman?
Probably not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I could have supported Elizabeth Dole in her day. Someone like that.
I wonder if the strong Hilary supporters would vote for a conservative/Republican woman?
Probably not.

Of course they wouldn’t. But, it wouldn’t be because of sexism, mind you. It is only sexism when it is a Democrat running.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And that is a fact no one can dispute.

This exemplifies the mentality of the classic Hillary devotee. They just arrogantly assert supposed facts with no substantiation, and then when everybody doesn't immediately see their mental and moral superiority and get on board, they dismiss them as bigots.