The Death of the Market-Oriented Party/Candidate; why Clinton lost.

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. Brando says:

    So we should only elect dictators in the future as long as they agree with us right? No longer should the president be a public servant who fears the people but a leader who will wip the masses into submission.

    I disagree with this article and am disappointed after reading your last article. Please Google: Gallup Poll: Most Admired Woman in the World and see who won 15 years in a row.

    Charisma is a very male attribute and also, while I think Obama is the best president of my lifetime, the specture of slavery has hung over this country and I feel for many voting for Obama was a way to right that wrong. A lot of people don’t feel the same about feminist causes. Many people see women as overprivileged. It’s hard to get around that mindset.

    So yes being a woman was a big part of it. Other women who have been heads of state have either been conservative, (Like Thatcher) who check their womanliness at the door and rule as genderless robots, not letting their “anatomy” get in the way, or they have been young liberals who are relatable and incredibly feminine and non threatening in their demeanor. (like

    Hillary didn’t lose, she won by 3 million votes. She won more votes than any other man has ever won in a US election except for Barrack Obama. She lost to our archaic electoral system that favors rural people over urban people.

    And she lost to rural people because as a woman running for a left wing party, she wasn’t sufficiently non-threatening.

    You are Dutch, and right now you’re country is going through a right wing resurgence coinciding with your country going from a fairly homogeneous nation to a multicultural one. And sine our electoral system favors the homogeneous rural center, I do agree that Bernie Sanders was probably a better candidate than Hillary for the system we have, but in this cycle, he might still have lost. 8 years of a black president was just too much for much of white America to handle. A president who wrote erotica and advocates raising taxes and making the safety net even bigger would have been a hard sell. His popularity wold have dipped. The media liked him as a David to Hillary’s Goliath. That was the narrative. Had he won the nomination the new narrative would have been ‘two extreme candidates, where is the middle?” instead of “two unpopular candidates.” The media was never going to give anyone a pass.

    But the next cycle the pendulum is due to swing violently back in the other direction. If the Bush era brought us our first black president. The Trump era will probably bring us to someone like Tammy Duckworth. Sanders would be a good president for a homogeneous society where it is harder to scare people with the specter of socialism if all the poor people are the same race as the rich people. It doesn’t work in multicultural societies however. Sanders is a relic of the past. His state is so white and so liberal because like Scandinavian countries, it’s hard to demonize the safety net if everyone on assistance looks like they could be a member of your family. It’s easy to demonize the safety net if the person on government assistance looks foreign. You still need a moderate even when the pendulum is swinging in your favor.

Please, tell me why I'm wrong.