Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that most American voters, Dems and Pubs, would definitely vote for a good woman candidate.
However, Mrs. Clinton was not that woman.
You may think she is not a good woman candidate but a majority or 65,844,610 million Americans did vote for a women candidate. The one that won received 62,979,636 million votes.
Here is what really bothers me about Hillary claiming that sexism was any sort of reason that she lost the election:
Some young lady, somewhere, is hearing this and thinking "If Hillary lost because she is a woman, will I be able to succeed? If sexism is so bad that Hillary - who according to the Democrats was the best choice for President of the USA was unable to win, what chance do I have of achieving anything in life?"
That, right there, - the effect that idiotic claims like this have on the next generation, the generation that my daughters are in. That is my problem with people who make these bogus claims. The truth of the matter, despite my rather flippant answer earlier in this thread, is that sexism does exist. It will always exist because there will always be ignorant people who can't/won't/don't believe that the genders are equally capable in the vast majority of cases. And, unfortunately, sexism will always exist because egotistical idiots don't understand that there is a difference between not wanting that woman for President and not wanting any woman for President.
You may think she is not a good woman candidate but a majority or 65,844,610 million Americans did vote for a women candidate. The one that won received 62,979,636 million votes.
That's a really, really good point. Which makes her statement look even less rational.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
I do not know of a single person on here that would NOT vote for someone BECAUSE she is a woman. Funny, though because with that said, I have heard an awful lot of liberals who have said they would vote for someone just BECAUSE she is a woman (the very definition of sexism). "The first woman president... yippeee...."
This whole "Faux Sexism" thing has been done to death.
But keep on crying wolf...if it makes you feel good.
Look at policy. Not sex. Not race.
POLICY.
Look at history.
She has a valid point. Until Obama, only white men have been President. H Clinton is the first women candidate to come close to winning (well, she did win the popular vote).
Don't be ridiculous that liberals would vote for a woman just because she is a woman. You seriously think the more educated classes would vote for Sara Pallin. Come on...
You may think she is not a good woman candidate but a majority or 65,844,610 million Americans did vote for a women candidate. The one that won received 62,979,636 million votes.
And had she bothered to chase votes in any of the states that actually mattered, she may have managed to win the Electoral College. The truth of the matter is that Hillary ran a terrible campaign that was based on nothing but "I'm not Trump." She ignored states that she should have been stumping in, she stumped in states that she very well could have ignored, and she called a solid chunk of the population deplorable because they didn't agree with her views. Her winning of the popular vote while losing the EC vote shows where she screwed up if one merely pays attention to how this happened. The effect that any sexism had on the results was minuscule. She was just a bad candidate who forgot that the election isn't won on the popular vote.
And had she bothered to chase votes in any of the states that actually mattered, she may have managed to win the Electoral College. The truth of the matter is that Hillary ran a terrible campaign that was based on nothing but "I'm not Trump." She ignored states that she should have been stumping in, she stumped in states that she very well could have ignored, and she called a solid chunk of the population deplorable because they didn't agree with her views. Her winning of the popular vote while losing the EC vote shows where she screwed up if one merely pays attention to how this happened. The effect that any sexism had on the results was minuscule. She was just a bad candidate who forgot that the election isn't won on the popular vote.
You may think she is not a good woman candidate but a majority or 65,844,610 million Americans did vote for a women candidate. The one that won received 62,979,636 million votes.
How many of those votes came from the Midwestern region?
How many of those votes came from the Midwestern region?
I don't know. I don't care enough to look it up. I think we all know H Clinton won the coasts. Like the other poster said, she should have tried a lot harder with the working classes in the Midwest. Trump may may not give 2 ****es about them but he played into their fears and it worked for him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
