Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mcar

(42,372 posts)
Fri Jun 2, 2017, 04:01 PM Jun 2017

The Silencing of the Hillary Clinton Supporter

I never heard of this pub but this is a great read

https://www.damemagazine.com/2017/06/01/silencing-hillary-clinton-supporter

The media’s obsession with the white populist narrative serves two purposes: telling women who supported Hillary they don’t matter and exonerating itself from being culpable in her loss.

Written by
Lisa Solod

As we know now, only 43 percent of white women voted for Hillary, which of course had a major impact in the end. However the narrative being pushed by the right and even from some on the left is that Trump voters were predominantly middle and working class and disenfranchised, and that she ignored them. According to The Atlantic Monthly’s Derek Thompson, that is a dangerous myth. “Hillary Clinton talked about the working class, middle-class jobs, and the dignity of work constantly. And she still lost,” Thompson writes. “She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs … She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce.”...

But, as Traister points out, “Though you might not know it from the media coverage, there were many, many women who not only voted for Clinton but were excited about it. ‘Look at all of the deep dives into who exactly Trump voters were, what motivated them, where they had been let down, what they believed,’ says Jess McIntosh, Director of Communications Outreach for the Hillary campaign … adding: ‘Look at the coverage of Bernie Sanders’s supporters: Who’s filling the stadium, what gender and age and race were they? Those stories did not exist about enthusiastic Hillary voters even though there were more enthusiastic Hillary voters than for the other candidates. That lack of validation made it easier for the brutal response women experienced when they said they liked her.’”

The brutal response McIntosh is referring to was the way in which expressions of unreserved support for Clinton were often met with accusations of featherbrained fangirl-dom, or vagina-voting. This dynamic led plenty of supporters to shut up about their enthusiasms or to take them underground, to their secret Hillary-supporter Facebook groups. There was “no reason for people to believe that there were actually millions of people who genuinely adored her,” says McIntosh. Another story that never really landed: “The majority of our donors were women,” says Mini Timmaraju, Clinton’s former director of the women’s vote. “That’s never happened before in a presidential campaign.”...

Why aren’t women—and men—being asked about that anxiety? Why are Hillary voters being drowned out by a chorus of shut-ups, sit-downs, wait-your-turns, even from the Democrats? When is our turn? Hillary reached, indeed mesmerized millions of voters, especially women, who heard her message, a message that resonated with them. She may have been more intellectually sophisticated than some of the women I know, but that was cause for admiration, not spite. Hillary voters weren’t looking for a friend or a peer, but for an experienced leader who could get things done, and who could speak for them. They knew who cared for them. And Trump’s agenda since taking office has proved Hillary right on everything (not least of all his being Putin’s puppet).

19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Response to mcar (Original post)

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
2. Huh?
Fri Jun 2, 2017, 04:48 PM
Jun 2017

Sit down and shut up? Wait your turn? Is this the candidate that started out as "inevitable" despite all of her negatives? She lost. It isn't clear any democrat could have won. But let's not rewrite history to explain it. Between Comey, the Russians, and the difficulty of winning after 8 years of a party holding the white house, there are plenty of reasons that she lost than any explanation associated with the imperfections of her supporters.

kcr

(15,320 posts)
15. Wuh? So hard to understand the words....
Fri Jun 2, 2017, 08:58 PM
Jun 2017

Come on. The article is very clear. Zooming in on one phrase like "wait your turn", and then taking it out of context so you can pretend Hillary voters were never shamed out of being open supporters and their numbers downplayed is hardly portraying an accurate history.

lunamagica

(9,967 posts)
3. K&R! Great article. I'm tired of being told that "She lost, get over it" Guess what?
Fri Jun 2, 2017, 05:03 PM
Jun 2017

I WILL NOT GET OVER IT.

I'm so happy that finally someone in the press acknowledged we exist, there are million of us and we enthusiastically, passionately supported (and support) Hillary.

I think it is great to see she has not retire, she's up front and center.

Keep going Hillary, we have your back

 

Awsi Dooger

(14,565 posts)
4. Hillary was stuck in a narrow window
Fri Jun 2, 2017, 05:27 PM
Jun 2017

It didn't really matter what she said or did, as a known quantity and polarizing figure for a quarter century. Hillary was my favorite Democratic nominee since I've been old enough to follow politics, but I knew darn well she would never reach 51 or 52%.

She basically had to do everything correctly to budge 50%, and it didn't happen. Last I checked it was barely 48%. I thought all along -- for years -- that she would receive somewhere between 47% and 50% regardless of opponent or focus. No margin for error, not in 2016 with a situational deficit. She would have cruised in the favorable environment of 2008. My argument all along was that if you ran Obama and Hillary back to back then Hillary had to go first. You never want to save the less likable candidate for second shift, when you've already held the White House for two terms.

Hillary's messaging to the middle class may be technically found within her speeches and proposals but it wasn't front and center, not something immediately associated with her campaign. I thought she really blew it in that regard in the first debate. Trump seized the job loss in Ohio topic and voters in other manufacturing states attached it to themselves. Lies and false hope trumped no hope at all.

Somehow Hillary and the campaign strategists didn't comprehend her low upside, so they ignorantly tried to expand the playing field. It was like working on the end zone dance long before you've arrived.

LisaM

(27,830 posts)
7. I disagree that she was less likeable in 2008 - that's a matter of personal taste, I guess, but
Fri Jun 2, 2017, 05:45 PM
Jun 2017

I completely agree that it would have been better for Hillary to be the 2008 nominee and Obama the 2016 nominee. There were myriad problems with that, though, because Obama attracted a lot of people who weren't necessarily political and who loved the tidal wave of enthusiasm that engulfed him back then. It would have been difficult for another candidate - any candidate - to capture that. Essentially, Obama would have had to not run, or have bowed out very quickly, then been chosen as the VP nominee.

I firmly believe that Hillary would have chosen Obama as a VP candidate in 2008 and was bitterly disappointed (though not surprised) that Obama didn't choose her.

deurbano

(2,895 posts)
13. I was hoping for the Clinton 2008/Obama 2016 scenario, too. I thought he had too much faith in
Fri Jun 2, 2017, 07:06 PM
Jun 2017

post-partisanship, and given Clinton's history with the right, I was pretty sure she wouldn't make that mistake. After eight years watching the right try to undermine her every move, he would be more prepared for them.

StevieM

(10,500 posts)
14. Obama was a great president but appointing James Comey was his biggest mistake.
Fri Jun 2, 2017, 08:01 PM
Jun 2017

He was so determined to be post-partisan that he appointed the guy who destroyed the Democratic candidate to succeed Obama. And had someone else been the Democratic nominee the FBI might very well have gone after them as well.

bresue

(1,007 posts)
5. Also, 40% of Households, the women support the family.
Fri Jun 2, 2017, 05:36 PM
Jun 2017

Rublican white men are feeling threatened because of the change in balance of power. The woman is now the strong bread-winner and does not need them any longer.

I strongly believe that anxiety and fear of woman power did affect the voting in the rust-belt.

 

Madam45for2923

(7,178 posts)
19. I love this article! I have admired HRC since she appeared, glad she moved to my State & ran here
Sun Jun 4, 2017, 07:49 AM
Jun 2017

for Senator. She will always have my admiration, respect & support.

As a supporter I was surprised at all the over-the-top bullying we encountered the whole of last year. It was based on fake news and it was relentless and awful.

Love how HRC is the best example of resilience. She has like super-powers in this regard.



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Silencing of the Hill...