I'd like help please. I'm uncomfortable with the many statements that the women who voted for Trump are poor and stupid

[HoneyDragon]

I can't articulate why. And need help to do so. I'm not going to beat around the bush when people say uneducated with faux sympathy, they do obviously mean stupid. Which isn't helping me either.

Even watching the dreaded Wright Stuff, I'm at edge with two priviliged White males effectively saying women voted that way because they are too weakened to do anything else. (Texan housewives being put forth as an example). I'm not liking the way the media is discussing the amount of women that voted for an odious openly sexist turd ....but for the life of me cannot verbalise it.

For an analysis of how/why Trump won Michael Moore predicted several weeks before the elections that he would win. It makes sense.

(Includes the form of neo liberalism promoted by Clinton which has screwed over many states, The angry white man, and the rebel vote)

michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

I remember reading a while ago he predicted Trump would win and thinking he is just being contraversial and not really taking note of what he was saying ....

We do filter out what we don't want to hear and we need politicians not to do that and the problem is they too have been filtering out what they don't want to hear or what doesn't suit their agenda. It happened with Farage he wasn't taken seriously by Labour and it's happened with Trump

The media backed themselves into a corner over this. They paint trump as a complete and utter idiot, devoid of any redeeming features. Despite this, people still apparently chose to vote for him. I long thought the tone of the coverage on the BBC, to name one, was over the top and they were going to end up with egg on their face.

To try and answer your op - I think it's largely that women are the largest identifiable group of voters who could have chosen to interpret trump's comments as evidence he hates all of them. Feminism identifies all women as a class of people. It's similar to the cat calling thing, simply I think you have to assume that not all women are offended by rhetoric branded misogynist by the left, clearly a great many of them are not.

That's interesting that Michael Moore predicted a win for Trump, Ophelia. I thought for quite a long time that the race was very, very close (and probably would hinge on abstentions from Democrats too busy showing they were holier-than-thou to hold their noses and vote for Clinton) - and have been rather amazed in its aftermath to find that all the pundits are saying "How could this have happened? We never thought this would happen!" I thought it was pretty damn obvious not only that it could happen, but that it might well happen. (The polls, and the fluctuating poll gap, looked incredibly like the polls in the run up to Brexit).

I called it way back about 9, 10 months ago, simply based on the fact that the US generally swings from Democrat to Republican to Democrat every two terms. I had a bad feeling it was in the bag for Trump when Hillary made the "deplorables" comment - that was a massive misstep. If your election success hinges on marginal voters in a few key states, and you know that they are dithering, calling the opposing viewpoint one that could only be held by "deplorables" is, I think, as likely to push people over the edge into "sod you then" as it is to sway them to your cause. And I think she utterly failed to mobilise the black vote (partly because I suspect she and Bill are not as genuine in their anti-racism as they might be - I know a lot of black Americans have grave reservations about the pair of them.) Mind you, I did call Brexit wrong, though, so maybe my predictions should bear about as much weight as tossing a coin.

Growapear - interesting observation re. the BBC. When I picked DS up from after school club, they told me (with a mixture of amusement and "just what sort of a bonkers parent are you to be politically indoctrinating your child") that DS had been making lego effigies of Trump, and not in a pro Trump way. I had to explain that DS had mostly formed his own opinions on Trump from Newsround (which has featured them taking cuddly toy puppets of Trump and Clinton round US schools, and had Democrat-inclined kids punching the Trump doll). It's a bit much when the BBC reduces politics to pantomime villain status. (I think Trump is wrong, racist, and incredibly, terrifyingly dangerous for the world - but you don't reduce political discourse to "he's behind you!!!" even in a programme for kids.)

I found the BBC coverage on night of the vote rather odd. Before the votes had come in they were talking about how many votes Trump would have to win itnwas very focussed on Trump and they seemed a little too excited when the votes did come in and states had turned Republican

I guess though if you have worked for years and years as a political journalist these last few years will have been on of the most exciting in your career

The BBC were ridiculously pro-Trump, even after his pussy grabbing comments.

Why do you say that? It was not my impression. If anything I thought the BBC, like just about every one in the UK establishment, of whatever political persuasion, except Katie Hopkins and Farage , were pro Clinton.

The impression I got from the election night coverage hosted by Andrew Neill was they all were at the start, comfortably sure Clinton had won. They spent a lot of time explaining how difficult it would be for Trump and then the results started coming in. I gave up around 2 pm. I certainly did not have any impression they were personally excited at the thought of his winning, other than it was from a political viewpoint, astounding.

Andrew Neil had made clear a few weeks earlier what he thought when he humiliated (quite rightly) Katie Hopkins when she was wittering on about Trump.

The BBC news website, which is my only BBC election experience because I don't generally watch TV, was heavily weighted towards keeping Trump front and centre. Clinton tended to be mentioned in relation to Trump.

Maybe the TV news was different, I can't really say.

I check the BBC news app about twice a day. I did not see bias on it. Why would the BBC be pro- Trump?

Did you not? Maybe we read different things then.

I am not suggesting that they wanted Trump to win at all they should remain impartial and I think on the whole the BBC are. Andrew Neil stopped Katie Hopkins in her tracks as that is what he does when someone is praising a politician he would have done the same if she were talking about Clinton - though I am sure he would be a Clinton supporter

but covering the election night what they were reporting on was an election like no other, Obama being voted in would have been very exciting for very different reasons Trump it has shaken the political establishment to the core that will not have been witnessed by them and they are political journalists

My impression of the BBC coverage was that there were probably more articles on Trump, simply because he kept doing and saying such outrageous things all the way through the campaign that he ended up as front page news. I don't think the BBC were biased towards him in the sense of giving tacit approval to any of this - in fact quite the reverse. But I suspect for Trump, who doesn't give a shit how outrageously (or indeed immorally or dishonestly) he behaves, any news was good news. If it kept him on the front pages and in the public eye that was great as far as he was concerned, and if the coverage was negative, he could spin it as "look how much the elite/ out of touch liberal lefties hate me..."

OP I find your statements interesting
Is it possible that you are uncomfortable with the facts of it ( i.e. Women voting for Trump) rather than the portrayal? I haven't seen anything like Wright Stuff or that type of media so can't comment on that aspect.

I suppose there has been a focus on Trump's female supporters partly because it seems so remarkable that women would vote for him after he's spent his entire campaign, and much of his previous public life, traducing and abusing them.

I think we need to recognise that women are not immune to patriarchal culture themselves. And also, being human beings, they are no less likely to be stupid, bigoted and ill-informed than men.

The BBC were batantly anti trump in my opinion. The sneering tone with which jon sopel delivered his summaries of the trump rallies i actually found offensive and I can't stand trump. It was so obviously painting trump and the attendees of said rally as morons that I found it very unbefitting of a "news" organisation. I knew there are sections of the political right who find the BBC to have an enormous political bias to the left, before the US election I would have disagreed with that, but now, I'm not so sure.

Check it out today e.g. - top US story is apparently that Obama might speak out against trump if he feels he ought to. Go to Reueters, CNN etc - that story is not on the front page.

Regarding women - i find this quite interesting, it perhaps in some ways goes to show that coming up with campaigns aimed at persuading "women" are pointless since the class of human beings that are women is so large and diverse. When people comment that Trump offends "women" what they actually mean is that he offends liberally minded women.

The BBC were right to be anti-Trump. Everyone is right to be anti-Trump - just like everyone is right to be anti-Hitler, Milosevic and Saville.

Trump is a misogynist, racist, neofascist piece of crap who is going to lay waste to what remains of social justice in the US.

Grow, I only saw neutral bbc coverage
I have been wondering if Obama will speak out so I was interested to see that but think it was in metro too

Re Trump and women, I think he's made his feelings about women crystal clear. I don't believe in campaigns aimed at the sexes either, the group is too large to form a segment for targeting.

the surprise here was that he was happy to say "I'll grab a woman by the pussy", "you're angry because you've got blood coming out of your whatever" and people thought that was fine presidential material. Bizarre.

Apart from the actual results night and Andrew Neill making Katie Price look like an idiot I thought the BBC was neutral

Disagree I'm afraid, there's simply no way that the coverage of Trump rallies was anything other than mocking in it's tone.

Xenophile has posted

The BBC were ridiculously pro-Trump, even after his pussy grabbing comments

You can't both be right.

Erm...that's why I "disagree" ? IMO Xeno is totally wrong, the BBC has quite a leftist bias.

Sure they can, lass, the BBC has a lot of programmes and if it's down to the tone the reporter is using

...or the wording, they could easily have different experiences of the same BBC.

Re Trump and women, I think he's made his feelings about women crystal clear. I don't believe in campaigns aimed at the sexes either, the group is too large to form a segment for targeting.

See, if HC had said to a male reporter e.g. "you need to think with your head and not your dick", I would have definitely thought that comment unbecoming of a president, as I do with at least half the stuff Trump says. What I would not be is personally offended by it ("as a man"), nor would I take it as evidence she hated "men". I think this is where there is a disconnect with some voters, there's a feeling that the left are too quick onto the high horse and to scream "he hates women" as a smear tactic, even thought I believe there is evidence to the contrary (i.e. he seems to have women in his life who love him, he has many female voters and has some "female friendly" policies)....we can disagree in the strongest possible way with someone without trying to smear him as someone who hates all human beings of the female class.

I would accept however there is strong evidence that he is racist.

Erm...that's why I "disagree" ? IMO Xeno is totally wrong, the BBC has quite a leftist bias

Xeno is convinced the BBC was biased in favour of Trump - you are convinced the BBC was biased against Trump. One of you must be wrong- personally I think you both are. The BBC was neutral.