In the summer of 2016, I was living in Washington, DC, and working at The Atlantic, both places that were consumed with the presidential election later that year. The conventional wisdom—backed up by polling, news coverage, and rationality—was that Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump. At a work happy hour one evening, I remember talking with one of my then bosses about what might actually change under a Clinton administration. Pragmatically, the answer was: nothing much. Emotionally, though, the stakes felt astronomical. I can remember arguing that Clinton’s inauguration would upend the way America thought about women—that seeing a woman elevated to the most powerful job in the world would overwrite decades of conditioning about who was allowed to have authority and what might be possible. The shifts would be seismic, I argued, even if they weren’t immediately obvious. This was a moment when progress still felt inevitable.

  • femtek@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    Sexism was a part but was not the reason people didn’t vote at all. I think if Hilary and Kamala stood firm against Republicans and Israel they would have won.

    • ellieficent@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      Interestingly, Hillary did get more votes than Trump. 3M votes more (and 2% of the total count)… it just wasn’t in the right places to count as a win thanks to the Electoral College.

    • Wren@lemmy.todayOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      I donno, I wasn’t aware of the full extent of the sexist remarks and backlash these politicians faced, and the article only grazes the surface. It was more pervasive than I let myself believe at the time.

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    overwrite decades of conditioning about who was allowed to have authority and what might be possible. The shifts would be seismic, I argued, even if they weren’t immediately obvious. This was a moment when progress still felt inevitable.

    Having this perspective after eight years of Obama is either ignorant or insane.

  • ɔiƚoxɘup@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    I don’t know how many of you guys noticed this, but when Kamala started running, she started talking about fixing the housing problems, and a week later, she stopped mentioning it and never mentioned it again.

    If she would have leaned into that and actually fixing real people’s problems and also tried to support Palestine, she would have won in an incredible landslide.

    • TomMasz@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      Overdependence on consultants has been an issue for Democrats for years. It seems like everything a candidate says has been run through consultants before it can be used.