The 2016 Election: Sexism and the Failure of Men on the Left

On Tuesday night, Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton to become our 45th President. Trump won in the Electoral College and Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin. Turnout was just shy of 130 million voters—almost identical to 2012— so Trump won despite a weak ground game and Clinton being heavily favored in state and national polls.

What the heck happened?

The short answer is that the polls were off because they assumed the Obama Coalition, the force of people of color/women, would more or less hold for Clinton. The Coalition did hold together for Democratic women but not men, which means that the polls were way off due to unexpected gender bias on the Left.

Context

Gender scholars in political science have long identified a strong bias against female candidates due to the masculinity the office embodies and gender biases in media coverage that diminish female candidates such as more negative coverage, a focus on dress and appearance, and outright sexism. Clinton’s bid was the tenth time a woman ran for the office, and she was faced the same gender bias in media coverage as the previous nine, with the added layers of hyper-sexist new media and social media. Furthermore, because leadership is defined as masculine, female presidential candidates face a double-bind where if they follow the norms of leadership, they are seen as too aggressive, but if they act in ways that are expected of women, they are seen as weak, incompetent leaders.

It is no wonder, then, that 7% of Americans say they will not vote for a female presidential candidate, and 26% are “angry or upset” at the idea of a woman in the White House. Some Americans genuinely fear a female president.

Clinton faced some world class sexism in this election, but it was ignored by many on the Left because we tend to see sexism as being less prevalent or less important than other systems of oppression. But we don’t live in a post-sexist society, and much of the public dialogue about Clinton has been explicitly and implicitly sexist, starting with the primary.

Public dialogue about Clinton has been so sexist that many only see her as a caricature— a corrupt, conniving, shrill villain, instead of the staid person and candidate she is. The double standard is highlighted when we imagine the short life the faux email “scandal” would have had if Joe Biden were running, or how unsuitable a Clinton candidacy would be were she with her third husband; a husband who had violated U.S. immigration laws; on whom she had cheated; had she refused to release her tax returns; had 13 allegations of sexual assault; and joked that she likes to grab men by the dick without their consent. This election was anything but a fair race.

Given what we know about gender bias and the presidency, it is empirically absurd to project outcomes without taking latent sexism into account, which is what pollsters did. It is also absurd to talk about the outcome of an election with the first female candidate without discussing gender, which many analysts are now doing.

The Data

When it comes to gender, most women identify as Democrats, and this year saw the largest gender gap in history with a 12-point advantage for Clinton (see table below).

chart-1

When it comes to race and gender, a majority of white women voted for Trump, while most women of color voted for Clinton (see table below).

chart-2

This snapshot data, which many have reported on, is highly misleading when it comes to understanding what happened in the 2016 election. White women did not cause the election upset. They did not abandon Clinton. She actually succeeded in winning the vote of more white women – a 1% increase over 2012 (see table below). I am heartened that so many journalists have woken up to the fact that a majority of white women vote Republican for a variety of reasons (e.g., racism), but pollsters knew this and accounted for it in their projections.

This table does reveal an obvious pattern that explains the upset. With the exception of Latinas, women held their numbers in the Obama Coalition, while men in the Coalition broke to vote for Trump and third party candidates in surprising numbers. Overall, men’s support for the Democratic candidate dropped from 45% in 2012 to 41% in 2016, while women’s support held firm overall.

 Percentage of the Vote for the Democratic Candidate: 2012, 2016

2012 2016
White Men 35% 31%
White Women 42% 43%
Black Men 87% 80%
Black Women 96% 94%
Latino Men 65% 62%
Latino Women 76% 68%
Others 66% 61%

A 4% drop in support from men on the Left is significant. We are still waiting on state-by-state voter demographic information, but had men voted for Clinton in the same numbers as they voted for Obama in 2012 in key swing states, she would have won the election.

Other Factors

Other factors came into play in the election as well. We know that while voter suppression in the form of ID laws and a reduction in polling places demobilized votes on the Left. But experts disagree about whether it was enough to account for Clinton’s loss.

Racism accounts for Trump’s candidacy. Trump rose to political prominence hocking the racist birther lie. He is the answer to 8 years of a Black presidency. We know this from his rhetoric (he hasn’t been shy about it), the racism he encouraged at his rallies, and his appointment of alt-right hero Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. Research on Trump’s supporters finds that racial resentment, not economic anxiety, is the driver. Exit polls show that Trump voters were older, white, and well-off, and their primary concern was the deportation of immigrants.

But racism doesn’t explain the election upset in terms of numbers because it played a predictable, predicted role in the election. Trump’s support with whites looks similar to Romney’s support from this group in 2012.

chart3

A factor that did contribute to the upset is third party voting, but it is also likely a reflection of deep-seated gender bias. Nearly three times as many people voted third party in 2016 compared to 2012 (6.9 million compared to 2.4 million). This pattern only makes sense if there was a particularly charismatic third party candidate (there wasn’t) or both major party candidates were seen as equally awful. Throughout the campaign, Clinton and Trump were framed with false equivalency, aided by false balance in the press that simply would not have worked if Clinton were a man. Many Americans unconsciously dislike ambitious women, so it was easy to hyperbolically paint Clinton as a villain for mundane political trespasses.

Eleven days prior to the election, FBI Director James Comey reignited fears about Clinton’s emails with a bafflingly vague letter to Congress that possibly affected the outcome. Comey admitted there was nothing to the “scandal” two days prior to the election, but as Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway noted, “the damage is done.” Clinton’s polls dropped precipitously in the final week, and while we can’t know for sure whether the 13% of voters who were undecided the week before the election were influenced by the Comey letter, most of them broke for Trump. The margin of late deciders for Trump was especially large in the key states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Florida.

chart-4

As noted above, the Clinton email story is not a real scandal, but it sustained the gendered #CrookedHillary frame that dominated the way we think about the first women in a general presidential election. It was easy for many to buy into the Hillary hype about corruption because Americans have always seen ambitious women as corrupt, vile, unhealthy, and villainous.

 Next Time

I’ve had a knot in my stomach for over a year about Clinton. I didn’t dare believe she would make it past the primary because we’ve been here before. I  had  even published a book about the impossibility of a female presidency that predicted Clinton’s loss in 2008. I started trusting the polls in the general election because they were so positive and her opponent was/is a buffoon. I knew better than to entirely trust them because pollsters generally underestimate sexism, so I halved the margins, which were still enough pre-Comey’s October Surprise.

I trusted the polls through #Shrillary, #Killary, smile more, smile less, a “horse on her way to the glue factory,” Clinton using the bathroom is “gross,” she doesn’t have the stamina, she doesn’t look “presidential,” “when she walked in front of me, believe me I was not impressed,” “bitch,” “whore,” “lock her up,” “nasty woman,” “kill the bitch.”

I trusted the polls because I believed that men on the Left were with us in this struggle, but in the end, too many left us to vote for a racist, sexist, xenophobic, hyper-masculine demagogue. This was not a victory on the Right, but a failure of the Left.

In the future, when the stars align and we get a female candidate who is the most qualified candidate in history with remarkably high name recognition, she will face the same tired sexism that upset this election. We need to remember that every woman who runs for the presidency becomes a villain.

Panicked About a Trump Win? Relax, and vote.

Many of my progressive friends are panicking about the possibility of Donald Trump winning the White House. This post lays out why Hillary Clinton is heavily favored to win in November. I begin with an overview of the data and then respond to three questions that were recently posed by my skeptical Grandma Lois.

The Odds are Not in Trump’s Favor

Clinton is favored to win because Trump has disaffected many key voting groups with his racist,  xenophobic, sexist, and abelist comments and actions (see video below).

Trump criticized a Gold Star family in a way that is sure to hurt his standing with some veterans and service members. He even kicked a crying baby out of a rally (see video below), so I’m pretty sure he lost the baby vote.

Trump’s brazen bullying may be red meat to many of his supporters, and this strategy effectively cut through the clutter of a crowded Republican primary field, but it will not serve him well in the general election.

General election voters are 53% female, and Trump has a 70% unfavorable rating with women. The gender gap has been a deciding factor in five of the last six presidential contests, with women selecting the winner every time. Clinton has opened a 24-point gender gap with Trump, the largest in history, and he can’t win the election without more support from the ladies.

The vast majority of people of color in the U.S. are expected to vote for Clinton over Trump in November. Three-quarters of voters of color “strongly dislike” The Donald, and he has a 94% unfavorable rating with Blacks and a 77% unfavorable rating with Latinx. People of color constitute one-in-three voters, a portion of the electorate that could determine the outcome even if the gender gap were not so massive.

Together, the gender gap and the race gap make a Trump presidency very unlikely.

“But Polls Show Them Neck and Neck!”

National polls are not very useful when it comes to presidential elections because this race is not a national contest. It is a state-by-state contest in the Electoral College (see video below). News media organizations use national polls because they are easier to explain than Electoral College maps, and they make elections seem closer than they really are. News organizations make more money when elections seem tight because the coverage is more exciting, so it fits their profit interest to mislead with national polls.

Presidential elections are decided in swing states, a list that typically includes Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia. Trump loses big in the Electoral College according to multiple expert analyses. Nate Silver puts the odds of Hillary Clinton winning at 66%, a number that will fluctuate somewhat between now and November 8th. Also, Trump’s candidacy has put four solidly red states into play this election — Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and Missouri.

If you’re scratching your head about why so many Republican leaders have defied party bonds and not supported Trump, it’s because they know they don’t have to.

“But Trump Won the Primary!”

Trump’s “method” of winning the primary is precisely what will cost him the general.

Trump elbowed his way to the front of a packed field with a parody performance of masculinity that played upon the fears of Americans who feel they are being culturally left behind. Trump took up the longtime work of Fox News by giving these voters targets to vent their frustrations — “Mexicans,” refugees, women who don’t know their place (a sentiment invoked by a 10-year-old shouting “take the bitch down” at a recent campaign rally.) Some pundits argue that voters are attracted to Trump because they fear being left behind in the new economy, but analysis shows that racial fears are the actual driver of his support.

Trump supporters have significantly higher levels of racial resentment and concern about people from other countries threatening “American values” (a.k.a., xenophobia) than other Republicans and voters of other parties. Trump is the answer to eight years of a Black president with Fox News stoking racial resentment, but he is not the answer for a majority of voters.

It is true that Trump won the primary with a historically high number of votes (13 million) in the most crowded major party field in history. But primary and general election voters are not the same. About 120 million people are expected to vote in this high interest general election, and primary voters are more ideologically extreme than general election voters. For example, Republicans primary voters are more conservative than Republicans who vote in the general election, which means they are not as supportive of Trump’s extreme positions. Also, Trump may lose independent White voters who reject his overt racism.

Trump’s bombastic divide-and-conquer strategy worked to get him the nomination, but it won’t work in a general election because there simply aren’t enough whites with high levels of racial resentment to elect him.

What About Voter Suppression?

People who care about democracy have been rightfully concerned that voter ID laws would suppress enough votes to affect the outcome of the 2016 election. Republican-controlled state legislatures started passing voter ID laws in 2010, and 17 states now have them. Clinton has spoken about voter ID laws: “They’re doing everything they can to stop black people, Latinos, poor people, young people, people with disabilities from voting.” Trump has also spoken about these laws, saying the election will be “rigged” against him if these laws are not in place.

As I have previously written, on its face, an ID requirement to vote may seem reasonable, especially for the vast majority of Americans with IDs who use them to fly, purchase cigarettes, etc. But when considered within the broader political context, the anti-democratic intent of such legislation becomes clear.

Voter ID laws disproportionately affect Black Americans, Latino/a voters, U.S. citizens who were born in other countries, elderly people, people with disabilities, transgendered people, and students — all of whom are less likely to have the required ID for different reasons. A 2006 Brennan Center study finds that 25% of Black , 16% percent of Latino/s, and 18% percent of elderly Americans lack the necessary ID. Some on the left have accurately likened these new laws to Jim Crow Era poll taxes because the expense involved in obtaining an ID place a disproportionate burden on many groups that have been historically disenfranchised.

What do all of these groups have in common? With the exception of elderly Americans who have shifted Republican in recent years (although they still comprise the most active voting group for Democrats), the Americans who will be disproportionately affected by voter ID laws all vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

The voter ID movement is based on a bald-faced lie that voter impersonation is an issue. It’s not. As the DNC humorously notes, a person is 39 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to engage in voter impersonation, and 3,600 times more likely to report a UFO.

This voting fraud figure is based on a Bush Administration investigation into the matter that involved only 70 prosecutions nationwide, some of which were honest mistakes.

Voter suppression through voter ID laws will be minimal in the 2016 election because five courts in five states have struck down these laws in recent weeks. In North Dakota, a federal judge wrote that “The undisputed evidence before the Court reveals that voter fraud in North Dakota has been virtually non-existent.” Judges in Texas concluded that their voter ID law was intentionally designed to disenfranchise voters of color.

The jig is up with discriminatory voter ID laws, and while a dozen states still have these restrictions in place, the overall effect on the election is expected to be minor.

As a pundit, I have tried to interrupt the dog whistle politics at Fox News and other outlets for nearly a decade. Most progressive don’t watch Fox or other Right Wing content enough to know about the steady drip of racism, xenophobia, sexism, and misogyny delivered to viewers on a daily basis. Trump’s ascension has exposed the extent of bigotry in the electorate, which makes it easier to address. He has also helped to elect our first female president. (Any other leading Republican candidate likely would probably have beaten her, cause sexism.) Thanks, Trump, for making Grandma Lois so happy come November. 

 

 

2 Conventions, 1 Cup

The party conventions are behind us, and we have 99 days of one of the ugliest presidential election in history to go. This post is a recap of the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Cleveland and the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Philadelphia in terms of viewership, production quality, speakers, themes, truthiness, protests, post-convention bounce, and significance.

Setting aside President George Washington’s admonition of the parties as dangerous in his farewell address, they serve many vital purposes, one of which is to simplify the choice between candidates. The party conventions did just that by highlighting the stark differences between Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton. (I understand how Harambe is polling at 5%, but how is any American still undecided about this race?)

Viewership

First, some context. Party conventions have been media infomercials rather than forums to actually select a nominee for the past four decades as a result of primary election rules that ensure nominees are selected prior to the conventions. (The last contested convention was in 1976 when Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan duked it out for the Republican nomination on the floor.) It is no surprise, then, that convention viewership and hours of broadcast time have declined since 1960. Conventions just aren’t very exciting anymore.

The 2016 conventions posted moderate viewership numbers compared to recent elections. On average, more Americans tuned in to watch the DNC (29.2 million over four nights) than the RNC (25.2 million). However, more people tuned in to hear Trump’s speech than Clinton’s speech (34.9 million viewers compared to 33.3 million viewers). Both candidates fell short of the record for the highest ratings set by John McCain (38.9 million) and Barack Obama (38.3 million) in 2008.

Production Quality

The Democrats put on a much better show than the Republicans. Both had fancy sets and polished speakers, but the DNC had celebrity power. The convention featured Alicia Keys, Paul Simon, Meryl Streep, Lenny Kravitz, Katy Perry, Demi Lovato, Sarah Silverman, and others. Hollywood stars, including Jane Fonda and Eva Longoria, came together in a video to sing “Fight Song,” which now is in regular rotation on Los Angeles pop stations (see video below).

The RNC featured Scott Baio from Happy Days, soap actor and underwear model Antonio Sabato, Jr., and Willie Robertson from Duck Dynasty. The celebrity gap no doubt accounted for at least part of the ratings advantage for Democrats.

The RNC was also unpredictable and sometimes bizarre, full of unforced errors: Melania’s plagiarism and (awesome but awkward) rickrolling in her speech; questions about plagiarism in Donald Trump, Jr’s speech (which turned out to be his speechwriter cribbing his own previous work); honey badger Ted Cruz’s refusal to endorse Trump in his speech (see video below); and Trump’s gross grab of his daughter Ivanka’s hips on stage.

The Democrats also had their fair share of problems with the damning #DNCLeaks that show a clear DNC preference for Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the primary; the subsequent resignation of party chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz just days before the convention; and a disruptive #BernieorBust contingent inside and outside the convention hall in Philly.

Speakers

Beyond the celebrity gap, the Democrats offered more varied content for viewers. The DNC had twice as many speakers as the RNC (257 compared to 131), mostly because few sitting Republican lawmakers attended their convention. Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush skipped the Republican convention, and only 24 members of Congress spoke at the RNC compared to 73 who spoke at the DNC.

There were also notable differences in the quality of the convention speeches. For me, political speeches are mostly mind-numbingly boring because they employ platitudes, hokey colloquialisms, and fake emotions. I can barely make it through a political speech without a drinking game (I’m referring to coffee, of course). Looking past the serviceable speeches from Trump and Clinton, most of the Republican speeches were pat and predicatable, but many of the Democratic speeches were well above par.

In terms of my top five, Michelle Obama’s speech was simply the best in terms of delivery and emotional impact, while President Obama’s speech later in the week came in a close second for its soaring rhetoric and effective evisceration of the Republican nominee. Donald Trump, Jr.’s speech comes in third for his superb delivery and impressive Clinton takedowns. The speech from Khizr Khan, the father of a Muslim soldier killed in Iraq, comes in fourth on my list for his memorable offer to loan Trump his Constitution (a.k.a. Pocket Connie). Joe Biden’s gritty swan song rounds out my top five list. Uncle Joe was in rare form, vacillating between folksy humor and angry passion in a way that kept viewer’s rapt.

Another sharp difference between the RNC and the DNC was the humanization of the candidates. Clinton has been painted as a caricature by the Right and some members of the Left, and Trump has painted himself as a caricature with his bombastic performance of masculinity. The DNC humanized Clinton, but the RNC failed to humanize Trump. Bill Clinton’s rambling address and Chelsea Clinton’s heartfelt but dull speech were full of personal details that gave viewers a sense of life with Hillary. The same cannot be said for the five speeches from Trump family members (Melania, Tiffany, Donald, Jr., Eric, and Ivanka). It felt more like the Trump kids were describing their general manager rather than their father, and each speech felt like a missed opportunity to challenge the critique that Trump has an empathy deficit.

Themes

The themes of the RNC and the DNC could not have been clearer or more divergent. While many issues were covered at both conventions, the prevailing themes were fear (RNC) and love (DNC). I’m pretty sure the Democrats scrambled to amplify their positive content after watching a week of doom and gloom at the RNC, but I had reached my saccharine limit well before Lenny Kravitz belted out “Let Love Rule.” (Side note: I now blast “Let Love Rule” during the hour each day my Rush Limbaugh-loving neighbor, “Mr. Wilson,” waters his tree during the worst drought in a century.) Even Trump barbs felt like toothpicks from goody two shoes Tim Kaine with his boyish grin with his four harmonicas.

 Truthiness

Fact-checking websites would be a powerful tool for holding candidates accountable if more voters actually cared to. According to Politifact, Clinton’s acceptance speech was far more truthful than Trump’s. Only two out of six major claims in Trump’s speech were found to be “mostly true,” while five out of six major claims in Clinton’s speech were “mostly true.”  This is not surprising. During the primary, Clinton was found to be the most honest candidate on the campaign trail and Trump was the least honest. (I witnessed the heads of two diehard Berners actually explode when this finding was published back in May, or maybe I dreamed that part.)

Protests

The protests in Philly were much larger than the protests in Cleveland, mostly due to Sanders’ supporters, some of whom clung to a snowball’s chance hope of nominating their man. The minor disruption caused by the #DumpTrump camp on the first day of the RNC paled in comparison to four days of raucous protests both inside and outside the Democratic convention.

Inside the DNC hall, Bernie supporters regularly disrupted the proceedings with chants, and organizers responded by turning off the overhead lights in certain sections to prevent them from being seen by television viewers. Enterprising Bernie supporters responded in turn by donning glow-in-the-dark shirts. And if you were wondering why pro-Clinton chants cropped up in the last two days of the convention, Clinton supporters were instructed to yell chants to drown out chants from Bernie supporters, for example “U.S.A.” in response to “No More War.”

Outside the Democratic convention in Philly, protesters burned flags and breached security fences (see video below).

The only major clash at the RNC took place on day three of the convention when members of the Communist Party set two flags on fire just feet from where I was standing with my colleague, Beck Cooper (a.k.a. Wreck-It-Beck). This incident resulted in 17 arrests (see video below).

The RNC spent $49 million on security and brought over 4,000 police officers from across the country to Cleveland (see video below). Philadelphia spent $43 million on security with staffing from 6,600 local police officers. Overall, 24 protesters were arrested at the RNC. Over 50 protesters were detained and cited at the DNC, but only 11 people were actually arrested because Mayor Jim Kenney decriminalized disorderly conduct, public drunkenness, failure to disperse, and other offences just for the convention.

Bounce

Candidates typically enjoy about a 5% bounce in the polls after their party’s convention. Trump got a 4-point bounce in the polls after the RNC, and Clinton got a 5-point bounce, but many voters continue to be disenchanted with both candidates. Only 43% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans are satisfied with their party’s nominee.

So What?

Party conventions almost never affect the outcome of elections. Parties with the highest convention viewership win the White House only 50% of the time, and post-convention candidate poll bounces are referred to as “sugar highs” because they quickly evaporate. Also, the conventions were held early this year to avoid protracted divisions, to extend the fundraising calendar, and to avoid competing with the Olympics. They will be a distant memory by the time November 8th rolls around.

The Mars-Venus nature of the convention themes mirror deep chasms in an electorate divided by generation, race, gender, and education. One silver lining is that Americans have high interest in this election, which is great for democracy. We captured some of this intensity and passion through interviews with activists across the political spectrum at the RNC (see video below).

 

2012 Election Sexism Watch #10: “Much More Ladylike”

In case you missed it, Missouri senatorial candidate Todd Akin has again raised the ire of those who care about gender justice by stating that his opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill, was “much more ladylike” when she ran in 2006. He went on to say, “I think we have a very clear path to victory, and apparently Claire McCaskill thinks we do, too, because she was very aggressive at the debate, which was quite different than it was when she ran against Jim Talent.” (The Washington Post, and the Associated Press described the debate as more cordial.) In other words, Akin thinks that McCaskill’s unladylike aggressiveness at the debate will cause her to lose the election.

It’s rare to hear such a clear articulation of the double-bind of women’s leadership, where female leaders have to enact masculine traits to be considered “leaderly,” but this is then held against them because they aren’t being “properly ladylike.” I hope that Missouri voters are smarter than this, but maybe Akin is on to something. Several prominent Republicans who shunned Akin in August for his conflation of “forcible rape” with “legitimate rape,” endorsed him the day following his unrepentant “unladylike” statements. But it’s hard to say whether they were responding to this statement or his suggestion the next day that employers should be able to pay women less than men.

The close timing of these two overtly sexist statements begs the questions: Is Todd Akin purposefully exploiting potential sexism in the Missouri electorate to advance his campaign, and are notable Republicans supporting him because this tactic might work? Political journalist Chris Cillizza thinks Akin is a “devastatingly bad candidate” who will cost Republicans the Senate, but a series of polls indicate that he’s not only climbed back into this race, he may have a slight lead.