2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Had Clinton not run, who would have been on the DNC bench? [View all]Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Gender bias is the largest factor by far in the backblow against Hillary Clinton. According to Pew, that figure for Republican men and women is 16% and 20% respectively, and independent men 32% and women 45%. (69% of Democratic women want a woman president -- the only majority.)
So that's roughly
54% of Democratic men and 31% of Democratic women who do NOT want any woman in the oval office.
84% of Republican men and 80% of Republican women who do NOT want any woman in the oval office.*
68% of independent men and 55% of independent women who do NOT want any woman in the oval office.
* Although Pew research also shows higher numbers would vote for a woman who shared their ideology if that was the choice.
In any case, gender bias is huge, so huge that any assumptions should examine it first and then consider other factors. It's huge not just among right and left voters, but among the press. Over 2/3 of TV news directors are male, and management and ownership above them are overwhelmingly male. Biased, strongly negative, and dishonest coverage of HRC in 2008 was widespread and rampant -- and completely unrepentant as it has continued on unabated ever since. It also continues a very strong, continuous pattern of negative coverage of all female presidential candidates from the very beginning.
How about this one:
Both genders rate female politicians far higher in trustworthiness than male.
This is an era when people want trustworthiness more than anything else.
Do the constant attacks on Clinton's probity have ANYTHING to do with this?
How about the success of these tactics in spite of finding nothing truly damaging to attack her with?
Isn't all this worth some thought?
And this one: Who and what is she really if she's not the person the press and political punditry portray?