Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

I have a genuine question related to the rationale behind some claims often made on this site.

If Hillary Clinton is losing to a no-good lame much inferior lightweight candidate now because of the relentless media bias against her and the misogyny of the elites and part of the voters, what exactly would change between now and November that would make her more electable against another much inferior male candidate who is also a media darling ?

No snark. No insults to each other.
Floor is yours.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, misogyny (all tags)

Comments

73 Comments

Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Not to mention a candidate who has no problem cheating, and no problem calling his wife a cu** in public. McSame is misogyny personified.

by Pat Flatley 2008-05-19 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

The GE will be judged by electoral votes.  

If the Primary were judged by electoral votes, Hillary would have already won by very big margin.

Hillary is much more electable when we use the electoral vote metric.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Isn't the delegate system the equivalent of the EV ?

by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-19 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

No, it is not.  I think there are already a few diaries that discuss this point.  

First of all, the electoral-vote system is winner takes all.  The delegate system is proportional.  If the Primary were winner takes all, Hillary would have won by a big margin.  

Secondly, the delegate distribution system is arcane.  Hillary won Texas and Nevada but she is awarded less delegates in those two States.

Thirdly, there will be no caucuses for the GE.  Obama's campaign is excellent in gaming the caucuses.  He is ahead in the Primary because he won most of the caucuses.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

This is not the subject of the diary so I won't engage you on this but for the record, he has won more primaries as well :)

by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-19 08:06PM | 0 recs
Hillary won more counties and districts

by itsadryheat 2008-05-20 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Are you suggesting Senator Clinton will win Texas, and lose Illinois?

by ragekage 2008-05-19 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

I did not suggest those.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Well, the most recent polls give Senator Obama a strong 274 EVs, with possible pickups in two NE congressional districts, VA, and OH; Senator Clinton has 284, but very tenuous holds on OR, NM, and FL... indeed, Obama has no tenuous holds in his 274, just possible pickups. Needless to say, all Clinton has to do is lose Florida, and it's over.

Huh. Looks like both are electable. So, you were saying?

by ragekage 2008-05-19 08:23PM | 0 recs
Actually

Michigan, and Wisconsin look kind of close to me...

by Student Guy 2008-05-19 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

Not as close as Clinton's. +4 in WI, +3 in MI. But this is over the last five months as a composite, which means it's holding.

by ragekage 2008-05-19 08:34PM | 0 recs
Ok

I thought you meant with in the last month.

My bad for the misinterpretation...

by Student Guy 2008-05-19 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

The myDD electoral vote map is in agreement with the majority of other electoral maps.  I trust it to be very good, something that I would trust.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

I just pulled three of the most popular, EV.com, 270towin, and fivethirtyeight, and it doesn't jive with any of them. Weird. But I'm sure you can back that up, right?

by ragekage 2008-05-19 08:32PM | 0 recs
electoral-vote.com Hillary 284, Obama 242

by itsadryheat 2008-05-20 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

The methodology of the mydd EC maps is awful, using the last poll exclusively which introduces a lot of noise into the map, and it doesn't seem to be set up to automatically ingest polls either (or else it is just unclear which polls it uses and why). It seems to me I have seen it fall out of sync with new polls.

by letterc 2008-05-19 10:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

I'd mark WA and OR tossups at minimum if she's the nominee. Not only would that be 18 electoral votes at stake, but it would be time spent campaigning there that could be spent in other battlegrounds.

by Djo 2008-05-19 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Do you suggest that Senators Obama and Clinton would have used the exact same strategies under an entirely different primary system?

You are correct that something would have been different, but you simply cannot claim to know what would have resulted.

You can't.  This is academic and hypothetical.  Senator Obama wouldn't have spent the resources he did in small caucus states had they not mattered.  He would have contested New York, New Jersey, and California more.

You may be right that we need a change, but it is preposterous to assert knowledge of facts not in evidence.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-19 08:25PM | 0 recs
You just did. He doesn't try but would have won?

by itsadryheat 2008-05-20 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

On myDD front page, you can see the electoral-vote map based on the most recent head-to-head polls.

It is showing:

Clinton  296
McCain  243

Obama  253
McCain  285

That supports the point I was trying to make.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Again, way to not answer the question.

by IowaMike 2008-05-19 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

And given what the site admins said about that polling map, combined with the fact it gives both candidates Indiana (for example, where Obama is actually competitive with McCain with, but Clinton is forty points down according to the last RCP poll), makes you trust it outright. Right?

by ragekage 2008-05-19 08:14PM | 0 recs
Hillary wins big time on electoral-vote.com

May 20

Obama 242     McCain 285

Clinton  284   McCain 237

by itsadryheat 2008-05-20 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Wow, way to not answer the question. BTW, that talking point is so last week.

by IowaMike 2008-05-19 07:58PM | 0 recs
What if a fact is a talking point?

by itsadryheat 2008-05-20 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: What if a fact is a talking point?

Well, its only a fact if you accept some data and ignore others , so it is only an opinion.

by IowaMike 2008-05-20 11:27AM | 0 recs
Opinion? Electoral college votes in Pres.?

Hillary won enough states to count up 270 electoral votes by Feb.5. True.

Hillary could win 270 votes from little over a dozen states and it is possible for Obama to win 30 or more states without getting to 270.  Also true.

That Obama will win 'his' states over Republicans - speculation with no historical support.

That Obama will win all of Hillary's voter anyway after treating her the way he has? Hope.  But Pew Research says that 85% are closely watching the medai and Obama trying to push Hillary out and stop the race. 72% don't like what is being done to Hillary, they report to the polsters, and want the race to continue.  62% of Democrats in two other polls want the race to continue.  Thousands of voters Obama has discounted have come out to vote to have their votes matter.  Facts.

The 'opinion' seems to be primarily in your reaction to the facts.  

by itsadryheat 2008-05-20 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Opinion? Electoral college votes in Pres.?

GE does not equal primary elections.

You don't think Obama will win California, NY, or Mass? Right now, if the primary was held again, Obama would beat Clinton.

It is a weak argument based purely on opinion and assumptions of faulty logic.

Obama's logic: I won more delegates so I win.

Clinton's logic: a 10,000 word dissertation on how the system she agreed on beforehand isn't fair, that only the states she won matter, and how and why the nomination should be given to her.

This is over.

by IowaMike 2008-05-21 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Opinion? Electoral college votes in Pres.?

BTW, I was referring to the California primary.

by IowaMike 2008-05-21 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Yeah, but to really address the diarist's point head on, Clinton head a substantial lead over Obama. What gives you the confidence that the unstoppable MSM attacks and adventures in misogyny won't result in a parallel outcome where she might lose any lead she might have over McCain't?

Once again, just an honest question.

by lizardbox 2008-05-19 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

The fact that Hillary has won Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana and West Virginia (5 out of last 6 contests) in spite of the sexism/misogyny and media bias is proof that there is a backlash against sexism and media bias.

It proves that she has won the battle against sexism and media bias.

Therefore, these issues won't be a factor in the GE.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Wow.

That's just staggering.  She won on those issues amongst Democrats.

There is another party, you know.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-19 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question
Food for thought.
Were her wins in those states really wins on those issues?
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-19 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Let's see:

Texas & Ohio: 3AM / Canada Nafta BS / "Christian... as far as I know" / SNL: unfair to Hillary

Pennsylvania: Wright Wright Ayers Wright Wright "I Will Obliterate Iran" Wright Wright Flag Pin Wright

INDIANA: Let's drink the oil company's milkshake. Free Gas for Everyone!

W.V. No Comment.

by lizardbox 2008-05-19 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Right.  Needs to measure against the other party.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question
Is Gallup daily tracking poll a really relevant measure ?
If so, do you think Obama is ahead 16pts nationally right now ? And if so, doesn't that contradict the idea she has overcome the sexist/bias issue ?
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-19 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

The 16 point data point is not corroborated by other polling outfits, such as the Rasmussen daily tracking poll.  So, I have less confidence in it.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question
But the three-point difference between Obama and Clinton against McCain is not corroborated by outfits such as Rasmussen either.
Actually some outfits show him doing better than her.
All I am saying is that there is not much conclusion one can draw from a couple point variation within the MOE.
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-19 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

I think all three are within the SEM.  The Pollster.com provide mean values from a number of polling outfits.  All three are falling within SEM for the national head-to-head polls.

I personally think that the national polls are not very meaningful since it's the electoral votes from individual states that would count.

I was responding to a poster that was having an issue with me making the point that Hillary is winning Primary races and therefore she must have overcome the media sexism and bias.  The poster thought that it would be different when the Republicans are in play.  I provided the national gallup poll to show that she is holding up just fine against McCain despite all the sexism and media bias.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 09:51PM | 0 recs
5 of the last 6?????

1) Vermont

  1. Rhode Island
  2. Ohio
  3. Texas
  4. Wyoming
  5. Mississippi
  6. Pennsylvania
  7. Guam
  8. Indiana
  9. North Carolina
  10. West Virginia

The fact? 5 of the last 6? How about 6 of the last 11? Or, scratch Guam. 6 of the last 10. A whole lot different from "5 of the last 6 don't you think"? Making stuff up now, are we?

And while we're at it, what do these contests have in common: LA, NE, WA, ME, VI, DC, MD, VA, HI, WI?

by lizardbox 2008-05-19 08:44PM | 0 recs
Could woulda shoulda

You don't change the rules midway through.

Also, a win in the primaries is not indicative of a win in the general election.

by Renie 2008-05-19 09:21PM | 0 recs
Fantasy.

See, Hillary used oppo on Barack to even get to this point, her oppo will not work on McCain.

My 2 cents.

by pinche tejano 2008-05-19 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

The fact that Hillary has won Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana and West Virginia (5 out of last 6 contests) in spite of the sexism/misogyny and media bias is proof that there is a backlash against sexism and media bias.

It proves that she has won the battle against sexism and media bias.

Therefore, these issues won't be a factor in the GE.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Copy/paste the SAME statement?

We get it. Yout talking points are stale dude.

                   

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-19 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question
I appreciate the attemp at explaining your rationale.
How do you read the current media coverage in that regard then ?
Because unlike this process that took six months, there is no do-over in November.
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-19 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

In my opinion, the media will continue to be biased and sexist.  

But the recent voting results suggest these (sexism and biased reporting) have lost the ability to negatively influence the voters. The voters have gotten wiser, methinks.  The results suggest that voters have come to like Hillary more as they got to know her better.  

The fact that she won Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana and West Virginia suggests that the voters have gotten to like her more than Obama for otherwise, Obama would have won these contests.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question
So you disagree with the idea that these wins had to do with Obama struggling with a particular demographic.
It is not that white blue-collars don't like him, it is that the more they see of her, the more they like her, in spite of the negative coverage ?
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-19 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Well, from the sexist and biased coverage they expected to see a crazed monster with horns and blood shooting out of her mouth.  They were pleasantly surprised to find a lovely gentle caring lady with an amazing amount of knowledge on issues that they care about.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question
So once again, you are saying there is no particular problem with Obama there.
It is just that they found out about her and like her so much more, right ?
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-19 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

I think the problem Obama has with small-town Americans could be categorized under likeability.  These voters may perceive Obama as an elitist and therefore like him less.  

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

So it is not necessarily their trust and liking of her which went up ?
It is rather his that went down ?

And if it is a mix of the two, how can we be sure that she HAS overcome the sexism and bias ? Because McCain won't have those issues, will he ?

by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-19 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

I think they are all relative measures.  The important fact is that sexism and media bias hasn't prevented her from winning because relative to her competitors -- Obama and McCain -- she is more acceptable to voters.

McCain have issues of his own, such as 1) age, 2) ill temper, 3) weakness on economic issues, which is #1 issue for GE, 4) his closeness to GWB will be a big problem in GE.

Obama has other issues as well, such as 1) racism, 2) association with unsavory characters, such as Rezko, Auchi, Wright, and Ayers, 3) the perception that he is elitist and 4) doubt about his religion, some still wrongfully thought that he is a muslim.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Hillary is not winning, for one thing, under the only metric that counts, and under any other metric except the one that disenfranchises voters from Maine, Nevada, Iowa, and Washington.

Second, check out my post below.  The sexism that's been a part of the democratic primary process has been very tame compared to what she'll be in store for in the general election.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-19 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

I was discussing the fact the she has won Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana and West Virginia despite sexism and media bias.  It suggests that she has won the battle against sexism and media bias.

I think she stands a very good chance of winning the popular vote (including the 4 caucus states) by June 3.

The Republicans have gone after her for the past 16 years.  She is still standing.  I have great confidence that she will beat them again given the chance.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 10:01PM | 0 recs
The inferior lightweight candidate came in 2nd

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-19 08:22PM | 0 recs
your premise is wrong

Hillary isn't losing.  She's winning the popular vote and the states that will actually make a difference.  

It's hard to answer your question when the premise is biased.  

Another question that one could ask, if Obama is losing to Hillary in popular votes when the media is clearly for him and even pronouncing her candidacy 'over', how could he possibly beat McCain when McCain will  have media on his side?  

by searchforsolidarity 2008-05-19 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: your premise is wrong

I am personally very much against electability argument, whatever the candidate for the reasons you point out.

The idea that she is winning the popular vote is very very debatable (it requires to not count him any vote in Minnessota and not count 4 caucus states ... dubious) but OK

I will take your case and repeat.
Take "losing" out of the equation and replace it by "having a lot of trouble beating" or "roughly tied up with". Same question

by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-19 08:38PM | 0 recs
Michigan ... DUH

Not Minnesota.

by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-19 08:41PM | 0 recs
Michigan? One needs to run to get votes, right?

by itsadryheat 2008-05-20 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: your premise is wrong

Point of clarification - Hillary is winning the popular vote only if you don't count voters from Washington, Nevada, Maine, and Iowa.  Hundreds of thousands of voters in those states are having their votes completely ignored and discounted by Hillary when she makes her popular vote determination.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-19 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: your premise is wrong

RealClearPolitics uses estimated count for those 4 caucus states.  See link.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-19 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: your premise is wrong

RCP does, HRC doesn't.  If you do include the estimates, then Obama is ahead in the popular vote.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-19 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: your premise is wrong
Yes.
Check the link. He wins the PV when you count those.
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-19 09:09PM | 0 recs
Don't forget giving Obama zero
for Michigan. Could anything be more democratic? It's so insane that the supers aren't buying this powerful and principled argument. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
by JJE 2008-05-19 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't forget giving Obama zero

It's certainly democratic to award votes only to candidates who actually appeared on the ballot.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-05-21 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: your premise is wrong

She is only winning 'her' popular vote...a vote in two states that 'didn't count' and certainly was not 'fair.'  So stop saying she is winning the popular vote.  If she wins the popular vote with an overwhelming victory in Puerto Rico will that be the cap on this?  For Hillary supporters, probably...they will count that as proof that only she can win - when the reality is that in Nov there is no voting in the general election in PR.  But this is Hillary's counting - whatever works for her.

by mariannie 2008-05-19 11:11PM | 0 recs
And no caucuses! Just certified votes.

Why don't we just go back and count only certified votes in audited processes overseen by and vouched for by the Secretaries of State in the various states were the vote can be vouched for.  In the other states, let's just say the voters weren't checked, the votres weren't individaully balloted, the process was not secure and the "overseers" not sworn to uphold the process now did they check for regustration or even make sure the names counted were of real people and residents of the states.

If we want to talk about what should count and not count Obama folks talk themselves into a pig sty.

That Puerto Rico doesn't count meme wont fly.  If you diss PR voters we will just have to throw out all the rules that let non people even be counted in some caucuses.  And only count the votes that can be vouched for by states.   And we can add, don't count any votes from states that have not voted Democratic since ...pick a year, since they don't elect Democratic presidents.  Obama should not have opened this box.  It looks so bad for the party and so disrespects the voters.  We are the big tent party, except this year.

by itsadryheat 2008-05-20 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Good question.

The way I understand the sexism charge, HRC would be winning the democratic primary except for the sexism of the media, Obama campaign, Obama supporters, and the democratic party leadership.  

If that's the case, were HRC to become the nominee, how is she going to win if she has to deal with sexism in her own party, let alone the sexism that's going to come out in full force on the Republican side?  

What could we expect from the repubs in the fall?  Looking into my crystal ball ---  

They will attack Clinton for being weak on defense and foreign policy.  They are going to mercilessly use sniper-gate to attack HRC's credibility and trustworthiness on military affairs and ridicule her for trying to pass off her first lady years as foreign policy experience.  

Conservative women like Coulter and Malkin will make ridiculous assertions about how women are biologically unfit to be commander in chief.  I won't go into details, but I'm sure you can imagine the outrageous things they'll be saying.  

You'll probably hear testimony from wingnut ex-soldiers and generals who'll say that a good number of both male and female soldiers will just not be able to fully respect a female commander in chief.  

You're going to hear Rush start using the term "feminazis" again and again to label and demean HRC and her supporters, making stupid arguments about how HRC will try to get back at men for their patriarchy.  Rush and O'Reilly will probably talk about how HRC will appoint only lesbians and feminists as Supreme Court and federal judges.  And of course there is sure to be rampant gossip mongering about Hillary's relationship with Bill and about her sexuality.  

Fox News will get extremely ugly either way.    It'll either be feminazis or Reverend Wright 24/7.  

Should all of this prevent us from choosing a female nominee, assuming she has won the delegate count?  No.  Most of the sexist stuff from the right will play only to republicans and perhaps, ironically, to those same hard-working white working class male voters that HRC's been championing during the primaries.  

But, if people think the democratic primaries have been infected with gender bias, wait until they see what happens when the wingnuts are let loose in the fall.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-19 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Nothing.

Nothing will change. And everyone knows it and knows about it.

However, EVERYTHING will change for OBAMA...."lay off my wife!!"....yeah, like they are gonna do that....you ain't seen nuttin' yet.....

Can you imagine Hillary saying "Lay off my husband"??

Obama is askin' for it....and they will come after him....

by nikkid 2008-05-19 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

So, you're saying Rush won't be calling Hillary a femi-nazi if she became the democratic nominee?

As for Obama, the right hasn't waited with the race-baiting, they've been doing it already, along with HRC.  They went all out with race-baiting ads in the Mississippi congressional election.  They tried to link the democratic candidate to Obama and Reverend Wright.  And what happened?  The democratic candidate still won, and won by a relatively big margin given how conservative the district was.  

Think about it - Obama has already addressed the Wright controversy twice now, and each time, he came out a stronger candidate.  HRC and the repubs have already shot their load on Wright, I'm not sure how much more traction they'll be getting out  of it.  Obama's already been "vetted" on this issue, to put it in Hill's terms.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-19 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

of course he will call her all kinds of names, but everyone in America has already heard it for over 15 years......it's not new stuff....

With Obama everything will be new as they dig into their background and come up with more videos of michelle saying things, of ayers, of his cousin ralia odinga in kenya, etc etc.....with Obama it's all new territory....

With Hillary it's old stuff that everyone already knows about.

by nikkid 2008-05-20 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

Rush has been calling her that an worse for 16 years now. Bill won the presidency twice despite this.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-05-21 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Misogyny and bias: a provocative question

The head-to-head matchups are unreliable at this point because they include a large number of Dem defections (approx. 30% of Dems say they won't or might not vote for Obama, approx. 20% of Dems say they won't or might not vote for Clinton, and it's impossible to tell whether this isn't just noise).  With a few exceptions, the argument that Clinton is more electable is grounded in the possibility that her supporters are more likely to bolt.

How does Clinton reconcile losing the delegate race to Obama with the claim that she'd be more electable in the general?  Part of it is just what I suggested.  Also, if the Dems really have a ten-point advantage in party ID they might be able to put Ronald McDonald on the ticket and still have a chance.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-05-19 11:07PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads