Did misogyny win the 2016 US election?

[TheSteveMilliband]

Donald Trump winning was indicative of all sorts of things, but to me one of the biggest factors was misogyny. He appealed to "alpha males" and those unaware of internalised hatred of women. If he hadn't been up against a woman, he wouldn't have won.

I know lots of people really hate Hillary. I can't imagine a man with similar qualifications / history would have had the same level of hate, but some people, including feminists, insist she was just a "bad candidate" and that had it been another women, they would have won. I think we will see with democratic candidates that there is always some fatal flaw with female presidential candidates.

I'm basing this mainly on what appear to be double standards (whatever Hillary was, trump was 10 times worse) but am really interested in more nuanced / informed arguments either way. If anyone has recommended reading that'd be fab.

What do you think and why?

I think misogyny paid a part but it is worth noting that black women and/or college educated were the only groups of women more likely to vote for her than Trump.

Maybe she was the wrong candidate but I wonder how those people like Jill Stein who said she was no different to Trump feel now.

Bebstar I thought your post about the podcasts was really interesting. In many ways the Democratic electoral machine is incredibly effective but perhaps those who are invested in it are less good at picking up shifts in certain groups of voters who may not vote consistently but who turned out for Trump. As somebody else said, like Brexit here.

Maybe she was the wrong candidate but I wonder how those people like Jill Stein who said she was no different to Trump feel now.

I think this is important, because it may represent a real divide in how people think about this.

I am sure that besides beig personally appalled by Trump, Stein and others who had the same view are very worried about certain things. The whole separation of children from parents, the stupid wall stuff, the inability to work with congress, the inability with regard to diplomacy, and so on. I am also sure they worry about the long term damage he might do.

But I suspect that many of those people are mainly taking a wider and longer term view, and from that perspective Clinton, though she would not have made the same kinds of errors as Trump, looms as a real, maybe even greater, danger.

From this perspective Clinton represents the neoliberal politics that supports global corporatist capitalism, destroys the environment, and creates massive social and economic equality. In a real way, voting for Clinton would mean supporting the type of policies and politics that gave us the election of Trump. So in the short term, perhaps you would avoid DT and his stupid and evil ways. But there will be another Trump, maybe a worse one, or some other extreme reaction. Neoliberal politics and economics are unstable and that will play out one way or another.

A specific example to think about might be economic protectionism. trump seems to be a buffoon here as in all else. But Stein and others are in many ways closer to Trump's position, that controlling trade in the national interest is both possible and necessary. Clinton's commitment to free trade isn't be seen as a positive alternative to Trump.

perhaps those who are invested in it are less good at picking up shifts in certain groups of voters who may not vote consistently but who turned out for Trump.

One view of this is that major donors to and members of to the Democrats support the Clinton approach to economics, and very much oppose the Sanders view. They have no interest in electing someone who will look to make real changes.

Did misogyny win the 2016 US election?
Yes.

I think you are underestimating what a Marmite figure Hillary was.
And that's among people inclined to vote Democrat. Republicans HATE her.
Similarly, I'm sad to say, Obama was not as popular at home as he was abroad although he is more generally loved than Hillary.

I think it was part of it, but not the biggest part. Trump like Farage convinced enough people who were desperate for change that he is not an elite. Clinton was very much a Washington insider and I think more damage was done to her by being connected to Bill. There was a fair bit of disgusting sexist talk though and it has to be a factor and there are some throwbacks who think women cant do a proper leadership job. FFS you just have to look at the best by a universe Euro leader A. Merkel to see what idiots those who think that are.

Sorry to be boring but in terms of who was the better candidate, Clinton obviously was as she got more votes that Trump.

But because Trump won by cheating he opened the flood gates to reactionary white male patriarchy gaining a foot hold. (How many of us wonder how Gilead ever started?)

But like Theresa May who I referenced in my earlier posts, the party system is far happier to scapegoat a lone female than look at their failures.

The idea that Sanders could have won is absurd.

And Saradon is being criticised not for any anti feminism but for the most appalling notion that other peoples lives should be destroyed (dont forget children have died separated from their parents because of Trump) to prove that right wing policies are lethal. That is the sort of attitude that just sees people who are not part of the elite class as being cannon fodder at the front line while they remain airchair activists. Thoroughly despicable.

And the supposed popularity of populists like Farage and Trump may make good clips for tv news, but their popularity may be loud but it is a minority of the population. But MSM think they are good copy. They are the ones who legitimise their politics.

The majority are those who dont vote. But that would require MSM and those who think gossip on social meda is actual news to actual look at facts.

The US and the rest of the world are landed with a white male supremacist who didn't actually win and is happy to secure his position by pandering to religious fundamentalists.

And not forgetting that as a group more white women voted for Trump than they did for Clinton.

In the meantime for anyone wanting to engage with reality rather than endless stating their world view point as being the viewpoint, despite my earlier statement about people letting apathy continue this ridiculous state of affairs of a rigged system here are some links.

Elizabeth Warren abcnews.go.com/Politics/electoral-college-limits-campaign-playing-field-popular-voting/story?id=61794513

Campaign: www.nationalpopularvote.com/

The analysis of the election results suggests that Sanders would have done better than Hilary did, and might well have won against Trump.

It's hardly absurd to say so, so I am wondering about why you would say that.

It doesn't do much for your cause to call the system working as it is supposed to is cheating. It isn't meant to count only the popular vote. Trump may be reprehensible but that isn't an exammple of him cheating.

Trump like Farage convinced enough people who were desperate for change that he is not an elite.

I think they knew he was an elite. In some ways he traded on that, he said he understood how the elite had screwed them, because he did it himself, and he knew how the system worked. He also said he'd use that knowledge to help them, and they traded on him doing so.

Which seems like bad bet, except that HC denied that the elites were screwing anyone and certainly wouldn't have done anything about it.

So either way it's plebs 0, elites infinity.