Is my memory failing me or are we seeing vastly more open speculation this year about whether the country is ready for a woman President than we did in the general election campaign eight years ago? And far more people with microphones in front of their face admitting that either they won't support a woman or "have friends" who won't sup…
Is my memory failing me or are we seeing vastly more open speculation this year about whether the country is ready for a woman President than we did in the general election campaign eight years ago? And far more people with microphones in front of their face admitting that either they won't support a woman or "have friends" who won't support a woman?
I don't remember this with Hillary and frankly I'm a bit surprised to be hearing as much of it as I am this year. I'm sure Harris's race amplifies this criticism even more with certain voters, but any theories on what other reasons might be? #MeToo backlash? Podcast bros reaching critical mass in a way they hadn't in 2016?
Sounds like a case of social media algorithms self-reinforcement, where if you keep seeing videos of the same "JRE bro" viewpoints over and over you start believing everyone in the whole world thinks like that. Which is obviously not the case.
I'm pretty sure 2016 was worse since Wikileaks, FB misninfo, and Comey successfully counterprogrammed the Access Hollywood scandal. Also, we were in the aftermath of that horrendous waste of time called "gamergate" which was finessed by Bannon.
I think I recall you way back then expressing worry about how some people in a newsroom focus group were somehow more aware of Wikileaks stuff than Trump's candid dishing on his sexual harassment game.
Correct. I predicted Wikileaks would have more impact on Hillary than the Access Hollywood tape would on Trump. Nonetheless, I don't recall open displays of voter sexism or hand-wringing by Hillary's campaign that she didn't think large numbers of voters wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman.
They were more subtle I think. They portrayed her as man-ish, a shrew, a snarling cur, and an alcoholic (which is only an object of mockery for those people when it's a woman).
Yes I do remember that. But again, I'm asking specifically about voters expressing reticence in voting for a woman.....or Hillary's campaign expressing that it was a concern that people wouldn't vote for a woman the way some in Harris's campaign is now. I don't recall those conversations eight years ago.
The typical 2016 Hillary voter in my experience started out by saying, “She’s not really my first choice, but I guess we have to vote for her.” I do recall one white female friend (a friend since childhood and ex-gf with an abusive mother who is now in a long term lesbian relationship) who expressed that they were voting for Trump in part because Hillary was a woman.
I do think Mark has a point that the emergence of the manosphere in the last 2-3 years has made such proclamations louder than they might have been in a previous cycle
Like you’ve got people outright saying women shouldn’t be allowed to vote now 105 years after the 19th amendment, that was sure as shit not a thing in 2016
The same kind of unsubtle people as the ones who made a fancam of DeSantis with the Nazi Black Sun symbol superimposed over his face and didn't understand why that was a horrible thing.
It was just bad timing. Reverse the tape and the Comey letter and Hillary wins, probably while picking up the Senate as well.
But ultimately the tape was basically the last bad news for Trump, while Clinton got the wikileaks for a couple of weeks, then bad Obamacare news (HUGE rate increases announced right before the election at a time when that was still politically meaningful), then Comey.
It was such a barrage of bad headlines for Clinton that it got drowned out - but this was at the time that the ACA was still a big thing - so if you are using the ACA insurance market at the time and Hillary is saying - this is as good as it gets and Trump is saying - we can do better - well maybe you believe him.
"Is my memory failing me or are we seeing vastly more open speculation this year about whether the country is ready for a woman President than we did in the general election campaign eight years ago?"
I think your memory is failing you. That was a huge issue 8 years ago and a major reason that Hillary didn't win all the right states.
Another thing about Norway: the country had a gay Finance Minister (Per-Kristian Foss from the Conservative Party) serving under a Prime Minister who was a Christian Democrat (Kjell Magne Bondevik). And that was 20 years ago.
She has been verrrrryyyyy disciplined with that. And I think that's "Obama campaign people" influence. I recall Obama talking about anytime he brought up "race" - no matter how innocuously - his approvals dropped 10 points.
Obama and Harris are in fact the only major party presidential nominees we've had who were born after the 1940s. Of those in the 21st century who have fallen short, Gore, Kerry, Romney, and HIllary Clinton were all born between 1943-48, and McCain in 1936 (he's also the only now-deceased major party presidential nominee this century.)
HRC played Katy Perry songs at all of her events (especially the ones with feminist themes), and frequently wore full white pantsuits to honor the suffragists, including at the 3rd debate and reportedly on election night.
Just on the topics of clothes alone, Harris has hardly worn white since the DNC I think. Mostly darker colors (which kind of fits the era of crisis we have been living in for the last 8 years).
Yes. The fundamental difference this time around is that Harris is just tougher than Clinton and is proactive in targeting wide variety of voters while staying true to her principles.
Trump and the GOP have been having a HARD time trying to define Harris. What, how she laughs is bad? That’s it?
another avenue of negativism that simply is not true,,,remember: even in the best case scenario for KH tfg will likely get 70 MILLION votes...of course there will be a substantial number numbskulls who will say crap like that...but it is far from a signifcant issue this time around; and those who say that would almost certainly be voting for the felon anyway...no matter who the Dem nominee is!
I've wondered why Americans have such difficulty picturing a woman as president. It is not unusual worldwide. Countries that have had a woman leader include the UK, Germany, Italy, Israel, India, Pakistan, Finland, Norway, Greece, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Ireland, Iceland, Australia, New Zealand, Latvia, Finland, Philippines, et.al. Why is it even an issue here?
If I had to guess, I’d say part of it is because of the size of our military compared to other countries around the world. Many voters in this country have reservations about a woman being the Commander in Chief of the world’s largest military. This issue is not as relevant in other countries with smaller militaries.
Maybe not specifically military, but I think you are onto something here. All the countries listed here were/are not the #1 world power/top economy when the women became leaders. (Thatcher was long after the UK's peak in the 1910s.)
Perhaps it is about people not trusting a women to run the "most important office in the world". After all, the CEOs of the world's largest corporations are also almost exclusively male, although they at least have an excuse that their "electorates" (employees) are male-dominated.
I really don't see the sense in voters in other countries being less reluctant to vote for women as leaders because they think their own countries are less important than the U.S. Think about how that sounds when I reflect it back to you this way.
Nearly all of those countries listed (with the exception of Scandinavia) have only had 1 woman leader, so it might just be a case of us being a statistical outlier that is bound to correct itself eventually.
In addition to both of your guesses - which I think are both correct and related to each other you also have the fact that a bunch of people who didnt vote for Hillary did vote for Biden.
In 2008 the counter to "is America ready to elect a woman" was "yes of course. No one thought America was ready to elect a black person, and yet they did just last election".
Also, I think 9 years of Trump has just removed the filter for alot of people to say things in public that they would only say in private before.
That answer was true for a majority of voters, but not in the right states, and there were clearly many people who would vote for a Black man but not a feminist woman.
You could see it in the election results too, in the suburbs where a lot of educated squishy moderate types purposely voted R downballot to "keep Hillary in check", as if giving her a trifecta would be akin to handing the keys to the asylum over to the inmates.
Ironically, we did end up with a madman and his clowns taking the trifecta (for two years), and they were predictably met with a furious backlash from those very same voters.
Is my memory failing me or are we seeing vastly more open speculation this year about whether the country is ready for a woman President than we did in the general election campaign eight years ago? And far more people with microphones in front of their face admitting that either they won't support a woman or "have friends" who won't support a woman?
I don't remember this with Hillary and frankly I'm a bit surprised to be hearing as much of it as I am this year. I'm sure Harris's race amplifies this criticism even more with certain voters, but any theories on what other reasons might be? #MeToo backlash? Podcast bros reaching critical mass in a way they hadn't in 2016?
It’s def the podcast bros
Sounds like a case of social media algorithms self-reinforcement, where if you keep seeing videos of the same "JRE bro" viewpoints over and over you start believing everyone in the whole world thinks like that. Which is obviously not the case.
I'm pretty sure 2016 was worse since Wikileaks, FB misninfo, and Comey successfully counterprogrammed the Access Hollywood scandal. Also, we were in the aftermath of that horrendous waste of time called "gamergate" which was finessed by Bannon.
If that's true, it wasn't on my radar at all in 2016.
I think I recall you way back then expressing worry about how some people in a newsroom focus group were somehow more aware of Wikileaks stuff than Trump's candid dishing on his sexual harassment game.
Correct. I predicted Wikileaks would have more impact on Hillary than the Access Hollywood tape would on Trump. Nonetheless, I don't recall open displays of voter sexism or hand-wringing by Hillary's campaign that she didn't think large numbers of voters wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman.
They were more subtle I think. They portrayed her as man-ish, a shrew, a snarling cur, and an alcoholic (which is only an object of mockery for those people when it's a woman).
Remember Trump saying she was a "nasty woman"?
Yes I do remember that. But again, I'm asking specifically about voters expressing reticence in voting for a woman.....or Hillary's campaign expressing that it was a concern that people wouldn't vote for a woman the way some in Harris's campaign is now. I don't recall those conversations eight years ago.
Like I said...There were all kinds of questions about that in the media, for example.
To the extent it seems more pronounced in 2024, it could be because 2016 made it an open question because how else could he have won that year?
The typical 2016 Hillary voter in my experience started out by saying, “She’s not really my first choice, but I guess we have to vote for her.” I do recall one white female friend (a friend since childhood and ex-gf with an abusive mother who is now in a long term lesbian relationship) who expressed that they were voting for Trump in part because Hillary was a woman.
Wow!
I do think Mark has a point that the emergence of the manosphere in the last 2-3 years has made such proclamations louder than they might have been in a previous cycle
Like you’ve got people outright saying women shouldn’t be allowed to vote now 105 years after the 19th amendment, that was sure as shit not a thing in 2016
The same kind of unsubtle people as the ones who made a fancam of DeSantis with the Nazi Black Sun symbol superimposed over his face and didn't understand why that was a horrible thing.
You know I’d forgotten about that
I remember all kinds of sexism in 2016 but I think they played up the baggage from the Clinton years more loudly and effectively.
Having mostly gotten away with a huge amount of shit, they're going much further now.
Agreed but with zero subtlety(my gut here tells me that is not helpful to them; I still feel on a basic level that the average American is 'decent')
I also think that Hillary, by virtue of who she’s married to, was uniquely ill-equipped to take advantage of Access Hollywood.
It does make me feel old that Gen Zers are apparently hearing about the tape for the first time in TikTok since they were 10-15 when it came out 😵💫
It was just bad timing. Reverse the tape and the Comey letter and Hillary wins, probably while picking up the Senate as well.
But ultimately the tape was basically the last bad news for Trump, while Clinton got the wikileaks for a couple of weeks, then bad Obamacare news (HUGE rate increases announced right before the election at a time when that was still politically meaningful), then Comey.
Yup. Disastrous last two weeks of headlines, zero momentum into E-Day
man I don't remember that Obamacare thing
It was such a barrage of bad headlines for Clinton that it got drowned out - but this was at the time that the ACA was still a big thing - so if you are using the ACA insurance market at the time and Hillary is saying - this is as good as it gets and Trump is saying - we can do better - well maybe you believe him.
"Is my memory failing me or are we seeing vastly more open speculation this year about whether the country is ready for a woman President than we did in the general election campaign eight years ago?"
I think your memory is failing you. That was a huge issue 8 years ago and a major reason that Hillary didn't win all the right states.
Yeah, it was a massive issue in 2016. I hear minimumal grumbling now, at least comparatively.
Another thing about Norway: the country had a gay Finance Minister (Per-Kristian Foss from the Conservative Party) serving under a Prime Minister who was a Christian Democrat (Kjell Magne Bondevik). And that was 20 years ago.
Harris has mentioned that she would be the first woman President a lot less than Hillary did.
Way way way less
Yes, way way way less
She has been verrrrryyyyy disciplined with that. And I think that's "Obama campaign people" influence. I recall Obama talking about anytime he brought up "race" - no matter how innocuously - his approvals dropped 10 points.
Remember that Hillary's election night venue literally had a glass ceiling above it? She was leaning into the symbolism. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I don't get the same vibe from the Harris campaign at all. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/politics/hillary-clinton-election-night.html
Harris has leaned much more into the generational aspect than gender or race
For good measure, Obama is the only president we have had born after 1946 and there seems to be quite the pent-up demand to move on.
Obama and Harris are in fact the only major party presidential nominees we've had who were born after the 1940s. Of those in the 21st century who have fallen short, Gore, Kerry, Romney, and HIllary Clinton were all born between 1943-48, and McCain in 1936 (he's also the only now-deceased major party presidential nominee this century.)
HRC played Katy Perry songs at all of her events (especially the ones with feminist themes), and frequently wore full white pantsuits to honor the suffragists, including at the 3rd debate and reportedly on election night.
Just on the topics of clothes alone, Harris has hardly worn white since the DNC I think. Mostly darker colors (which kind of fits the era of crisis we have been living in for the last 8 years).
Pepperidge Farms remembers. One of her big closing ads was essentially a 1 minute music video set to Katy Perry's "Roar"! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKDHioNLb4I
Yes. The fundamental difference this time around is that Harris is just tougher than Clinton and is proactive in targeting wide variety of voters while staying true to her principles.
Trump and the GOP have been having a HARD time trying to define Harris. What, how she laughs is bad? That’s it?
another avenue of negativism that simply is not true,,,remember: even in the best case scenario for KH tfg will likely get 70 MILLION votes...of course there will be a substantial number numbskulls who will say crap like that...but it is far from a signifcant issue this time around; and those who say that would almost certainly be voting for the felon anyway...no matter who the Dem nominee is!
I've wondered why Americans have such difficulty picturing a woman as president. It is not unusual worldwide. Countries that have had a woman leader include the UK, Germany, Italy, Israel, India, Pakistan, Finland, Norway, Greece, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Ireland, Iceland, Australia, New Zealand, Latvia, Finland, Philippines, et.al. Why is it even an issue here?
If I had to guess, I’d say part of it is because of the size of our military compared to other countries around the world. Many voters in this country have reservations about a woman being the Commander in Chief of the world’s largest military. This issue is not as relevant in other countries with smaller militaries.
I disagree. It's pure sexism. You think the military is less important in countries like Israel, Pakistan and South Korea?
Maybe not specifically military, but I think you are onto something here. All the countries listed here were/are not the #1 world power/top economy when the women became leaders. (Thatcher was long after the UK's peak in the 1910s.)
Perhaps it is about people not trusting a women to run the "most important office in the world". After all, the CEOs of the world's largest corporations are also almost exclusively male, although they at least have an excuse that their "electorates" (employees) are male-dominated.
I really don't see the sense in voters in other countries being less reluctant to vote for women as leaders because they think their own countries are less important than the U.S. Think about how that sounds when I reflect it back to you this way.
Also Bangladesh, Estonia, Chile, Taiwan, South Korea, Turkey, Sierra Leone, Barbados, Peru...
Is it not an issue in those countries, or did other factors allow those leaders to defeat the sexists there?
Nearly all of those countries listed (with the exception of Scandinavia) have only had 1 woman leader, so it might just be a case of us being a statistical outlier that is bound to correct itself eventually.
Hopefully, we correct it this week.
Most of those countries have parliamentary systems where people aren't voting DIRECTLY for the leader even if they know who it is going to be.
In addition to both of your guesses - which I think are both correct and related to each other you also have the fact that a bunch of people who didnt vote for Hillary did vote for Biden.
In 2008 the counter to "is America ready to elect a woman" was "yes of course. No one thought America was ready to elect a black person, and yet they did just last election".
Also, I think 9 years of Trump has just removed the filter for alot of people to say things in public that they would only say in private before.
That answer was true for a majority of voters, but not in the right states, and there were clearly many people who would vote for a Black man but not a feminist woman.
You could see it in the election results too, in the suburbs where a lot of educated squishy moderate types purposely voted R downballot to "keep Hillary in check", as if giving her a trifecta would be akin to handing the keys to the asylum over to the inmates.
Ironically, we did end up with a madman and his clowns taking the trifecta (for two years), and they were predictably met with a furious backlash from those very same voters.
I’m not seeing this