2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton is immensely popular -- as long as she isn't seeking a seat at the Boy's Table
Take a look at the graph to the right. It charts Hillary Clintons approval rating by time period. Theres some pretty interesting discrepancies there. Theres nearly a perfect correlation over a 20 year time period between her approval ratings in office, and while seeking an office. Shes immensely popular IN office, and decidedly less popular when seeking a new office. In fact, her approval ratings in office are some of the highest in history. For anything. Quartz wrote about this earlier this year.
Its hard to remember these days, but just a few years ago, everybody loved Hillary Rodham Clinton. When she stepped down as US secretary of state in January 2013 after four years in office, her approval rating stood at what the Wall Street Journal described as an eye-popping 69%. That made her not only the most popular politician in the country, but the second-most popular secretary of state since 1948.
-Sady Doyle, Quartz, February 25, 2016
qz.com/...
This is a fairly well documented phenomenon for women in politics and business. America likes them when they arent asking for a seat at the next Boys Table. But once they finally get to the table and get to work, they suddenly become popular again. Amazing.
When chatter first started about Hillary Clinton seeking our partys nomination back in 2014, she was one of the most popular politicians in America.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/20/1613112/-Hillary-Clinton-is-immensely-popular-as-long-as-she-isn-t-seeking-a-seat-at-the-Boy-s-Table
____________________________________
How dare we presume a place at the boys table. Why are those little boys so frightened of a strong woman? I suggest they seek therapy.
vi5
(13,305 posts).... the only other times she's sought office was as NY Senator and.....you know.....she kind of won both times. So how bad could her approval have been?
And pulling in her popularity as First Lady is misleading since most of the time even regardless of how people feel about the husband/President, First Ladys usually engender a fair amount of good will.
And since she didn't have to run for Secretary of State, it's not exactly apples to apples to compare the two.
And then there's the fact that.....you know.....more people in the country voted for her to be president.
I'm not discounting sexism, but this whole angle doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. I honestly believe that as much of a factor as sexism still is, that this time around I think it was the least of the problems she faced.
sheshe2
(87,475 posts)Sexism played a big part and that was how she was attacked from both sides.
You were just looking to bash the left. Sorry I thought this was for an actual discussion with ideas. My mistake.
Best of luck to you.
Yet nice attack.
vi5
(13,305 posts)Well played. Well played.
sheshe2
(87,475 posts)You are all over my thread? Did I do something to you in another life? Please stop following me. Stop attacking me.
niyad
(119,901 posts)we can get right now.
thanks
We have each others backs.
I posted in a thread that the 61% of women that voted for trump will never be my sister or love and care for our children's future. They do not stand for us, yet I will still do my best to protect them even though they tossed me and mine away.
I do not like or respect them, yet I will try to protect them.
niyad
(119,901 posts)along with our own.
sheshe2
(87,475 posts)totodeinhere
(13,306 posts)niyad
(119,901 posts)sheshe2
(87,475 posts)totodeinhere
(13,306 posts)My point was that many Trump supporters don't give a damn about anything besides having a racist and a demagogue in the White House.
BTW, I enjoy reading your comments.
sheshe2
(87,475 posts)Peace~
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Funny that.
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)a show called flip or flop -- husband and wife take rundown homes in california and make them beautiful. well it seems the marriage broke up. i couldn't believe the nasty comments people made about the wife (including other women). she was too "mouthy", "thought she knew more about construction than he did", etc.
it got me thinking -- that's one of the reasons hillary lost. still a lot of misogyny in this country.
She was to "mouthy." Yup that is us! We need to sit down and just shut up. NOT!
Thanks DesertFlower.
mtnsnake
(22,236 posts)Both of them, the wife AND the husband, were deserving of some of the negative comments that came their way. Both of them acted like a couple of spoiled brats.
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)struggled when the housing market went south. i'm happy for their success. they also had a hard time conceiving their 2nd child. they had to harvest his sperm before his cancer treatment. she had several IVF's.
http://qpolitical.com/tarek-christina-el-moussa-reveal-heartbreaking-journey-behind-great-success/
seeing the prices people have to pay in southern california makes me grateful that i live in phoenix. can't imagine paying over $700,000 for a house with laminate floors.
niyad
(119,901 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,691 posts).... ran against Obama in the 2008 primary?
How do we classify people who called her "unfit" and "liar" and accused her of fomenting assassination of Obama in 2008 but now think she was the best nominee ever? Are they ex-sexists?
niyad
(119,901 posts)sheshe2
(87,475 posts)Gore1FL
(21,884 posts)Political dynasties are not popular at the moment. The same issue got Jeb Bush.
we don't really have any modern Secretaries of State who ran for President and First Ladies who ran for President to compare her to. However, if you look at Al Gore's approval ratings from Vice President to Presidential candidate, they didn't drop dramatically. Unfortunately I can't seem to find numbers for other candidates but that is where the comparison needs to be made.
vi5
(13,305 posts)...you can draw any conclusion from it that you want. That doesn't mean it will be the correct or the accurate one. As we learned in early November, none of this is scientific and there are way too many moving parts.
I couldn't agree more.
Look at polls. HRC herself said when she runs for office, her numbers go down. When she's in office, they go up. Uppity women shouldn't be running for office, apparently.
From one uppity woman to another, we rock.
niyad
(119,901 posts)Niyad...
AlexSFCA
(6,270 posts)Nearly every senate republican voted to confirm her as secretary of state. Many republicsns publicly praised inluding trump himself.
BlueMTexpat
(15,496 posts)It continues to play a role here on DU too - too many protest too much.
Thanks ss2! It's always good to "see" you!
I will remain heartbroken for the foreseeable future about the choice that was made in this election. I count myself very fortunate in that I take turns residing in two of the most liberal and culturally, racially, and religiously integrated areas of the world. Thus I will not suffer the consequences as too many will.
But I still empathize with those who voted like me - for the BEST candidate - and who do not have the advantages that I do to help them through the devastation that a DT Administration will bring.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)should be the nominee?
It would just never happen. And if she tried to do it, a female Socialist from Vermont with a child out of wedlock, rumpled clothes, disheveled white hair, a not terribly distinguished record in the House and Senate, yelling about oligarchs and promising a revolution would have been laughed out of the race within minutes.
sheshe2
(87,475 posts)Love you Effie!
progressoid
(50,747 posts)Elizabeth Warren.
No rumpled clothes or disheveled hair; but a divorced, ex-republican with little government experience, yelling about oligarchs and revolution.
I don't think she would be laughed out of the race within minutes.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)I repeat. No WOMAN with Bernie's attributes and baggage - including rumpled clothes, disheveled hair, a child out of wedlock with an undistinguished record yelling about oligarchs and revolution - would EVER have been taken seriously. Not for a second.
But a MAN with those same qualities was.
sheshe2
(87,475 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)let us.
sheshe2
(87,475 posts)progressoid
(50,747 posts)you should also add that Bernie is an old and Jewish to make your straw man argument complete. Clearly, there isn't a woman that fits that exact description to counter your supposition. The issue I have is that most of his attributes and baggage aren't really all that problematic. Gender notwithstanding.
Obviously, sexism was a factor in the election. She was held to a higher standard because she's a woman. Just as Obama was because he wasn't white. In fact, I think your argument makes more sense if you reverse it. That is, if Hillary's attributes and baggage (real or perceived), were applied to a man, they would be less of a problem.
BlueMTexpat
(15,496 posts)sheshe2
(87,475 posts)I am in a blue state too, yet due to circumstances... I will pay a heavy price. I am now on ACA, lost my job over 8 months ago.
BlueMTexpat
(15,496 posts)Dems had better fight like hell for the ACA, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security!
While a very mean part of me would love to see the Trump voters suffer for what they have done, I do not want those who are most vulnerable and who worked their hearts out for Hillary and Dems to fall by the wayside. So that means that we have to fight for the leeches too. But f**k every single one of those leeches!
sheshe2
(87,475 posts)Yes, we will fight for the trumpets as well. Sigh
niyad
(119,901 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,496 posts)Hi niyad!
niyad
(119,901 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,496 posts)to see this last night. But I was fine then - and am fine today, thanks, niyad!
I hope that all is well with you - and continues to be!
niyad
(119,901 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,496 posts)bucolic_frolic
(46,975 posts)The white wealthy male club is in charge, to exploit your labor and
steal assets for themselves
At the root, that's what this election was about.
Don't cooperate. Operate your own business, flow the profits to you.
Many start small. Just keep feet in motion. Carpool if you have to.
SunSeeker
(53,655 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)It's "Hillary did this" and "Hillary did that."
As if she wasn't running against a misogynistic sexist pig? Are they defending the pig?
sheshe2
(87,475 posts)niyad
(119,901 posts)johnp3907
(3,889 posts)"Help us, Old White Guy. Youre our only hope.
niyad
(119,901 posts)That one's been stewing in my brain for a while.
niyad
(119,901 posts)and now that phrase is stuck in my brain!!
Starry Messenger
(32,375 posts)sheshe2
(87,475 posts)niyad
(119,901 posts)niyad
(119,901 posts)Why do successful women like Hillary Clinton get under so many people's skin?
Theres nothing the public enjoys more than a high-flying woman brought low, argues Sady Doyle, and nothing we like less than a woman who refuses to play the game
?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=fb3980dea15e9fdb45a40e70a94e01c0
Hillarys extraordinary success may only be tempting the God of Trainwrecks to make her our biggest and best catastrophe yet: Clinton talks with members of her staff inside her campaign plane at the Westchester County airport. Photograph: Carlos Barria/Reuters
Hillary Clinton has a unique talent to make people viscerally angry. Just look at the footage from Trump rallies: supporters carry Lyin Hillary dolls hung from miniature nooses, cry Lock her up and Hang her in the streets, and wear Trump That Bitch T-shirts. You could chalk this up to Trumps toxicity, but some of it also haunted the Democratic primaries, in the over-the-top depictions of Clinton as a cold-blooded murderer or criminal mastermind promulgated by the most fanatical Bernie Sanders supporters.
So why is it, exactly, that Clinton gets under our skin? We could blame it on sexism personally, sexism is one of my favourite things to blame stuff on; I recommend it highly and that would be correct. Still, that diagnosis is a little too blunt to really get at the problem. Women and men, left-wingers and right-wingers alike, all dissolve into spasms of rabid conspiracy theorising and ranting when Clintons name comes up.
I would argue that Clinton irritates people not just because of her gender, but because we simply cant process her narrative. There are no stories that prepare us for her trajectory through life and, therefore, we react to her as if shes a disruption in our reality, rather than a person. We love public women best when they are losers, when theyre humiliated, defeated, or (in some instances) just plain killed. Yet Clinton, despite the disapproval that rains down on her, continues to go out there and chalk up wins.
Aversion to successful or ambitious women is nothing new. Its baked into our cultural DNA. Consider the myth of Atalanta. She was the fastest runner in her kingdom, forced men to race her for her hand, and defeated every one of them. She would have gotten away with it, too, if some man hadnt booby-trapped the course with apples to slow her down, which is presented as a happy ending. By taking away her ability to excel, he also takes away her loneliness.
. . . .
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/nov/06/why-do-we-love-a-trainwreck
treestar
(82,383 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Over and over again (alternating with "no one likes her) mindlessly as if EVERYONE on earth is not flawed. They were played like a fiddle with the Wiki leaks bullshit and hunted her down worse than congress did.
At least congress were not useful idiots.
sheshe2
(87,475 posts)niyad
(119,901 posts)sheshe2
(87,475 posts)I am locked out for saying Hill was hated.
Buckeye_Democrat
(15,042 posts)... and I'm sure that was related to her falling poll numbers too.
Now that she's "lost" the election, Republicans are closing the Benghazi investigation.
There's some Archie Bunker sexists still out there too, of course.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)sheshe2
(87,475 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Is sexism the only reason anyone could possibly not think Hillary was a good candidate for president? Absolutely not.
niyad
(119,901 posts)vociferously deny. ostrich land is rather crowded.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)But one of the issues we had here during the primary was the frequent insinuations being throw around that if you weren't with Hillary it was because you were a sexist. That isn't healthy.
niyad
(119,901 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,620 posts)George H. W. Bush
Early November 1992: 43% favorable, 52% unfavorable
June 2014: 62% favorable, 31% unfavorable
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1618/favorability-people-news.aspx
Vinca
(51,033 posts)niyad
(119,901 posts)see countless examples daily, even amoung those calling themselves "progressives"
Vinca
(51,033 posts)There's "sexism and misogyny" and then there's "SEXISM AND MYSOGYNY." The latter can get you killed.
LS_Editor
(893 posts)niyad
(119,901 posts)Seriously, stop denying reality.
niyad
(119,901 posts)LS_Editor
(893 posts)Your popular vote 'win' argument doesn't change that. Time to move on and regroup.
niyad
(119,901 posts)hear that?
LS_Editor
(893 posts)And we weren't playing a popular vote game, we were playing an electoral college game.
She lost. And you appear to be in serious denial about that, and are more than ready to group me in with the alt right or something.
If the Democratic Party responds like you do, 2016 will be the beginning of a long line of catastrophic elections.
Regroup, Adapt, Counterattack. But first, accept.
She lost because she was a weak candidate with too much baggage. Save the sexism charge for the real victims.
sheshe2
(87,475 posts)TIA
niyad
(119,901 posts)yes? in other words, one is not forced to read that which one finds tiresome, or objectionable, or dull, or. . .
but in response to the usual "weak candidate" meme, you might try reading the following:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028379627
The MAJORITY of Americans have determined she was a weak candidate. THAT is why she lost.
niyad
(119,901 posts)you ******* not understand?
and, instead of repeating reichwing memes, you might try actually reading the linked article, which your comment indicated you did not.
What seems clear to me is ...
93 million eligible voters didn't vote...
63 million voted for Trump...
That's 156 million eligible voters who did not support the democratic candidate, as compared to the 66 million who voted for Clinton.
That appears to point to a fact that the majority felt HRC was a weak candidate, including many democrats here on DU and throughout the nation.
I admit my numbers are off +/- and not exactly current, but certainly close enough to make a point.
Blaming it on sexism is a waste of energy and an insult to the real victims of sexism. Inferring I'm repeating "reichwing memes" is just flat wrong.
niyad
(119,901 posts)Merry Christmas to you.
niyad
(119,901 posts)happy festivus.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)You're arguing it ever went away after 2007/2008?
Everybody knew SoS was just the on-deck circle for another run. What at any point gave you the impression there wouldn't be a 2016 campaign?