Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 228 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@ AKA Smith - points to your points
[Read the article: Bully for Nancy Pelosi!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Broadsheet deals with issue of feminism. Therefore discussing issues of sexism exclusively is appropriate in Broadsheet.
Sure. And here on Broadsheet, Ms. Traister is accusing various people of enabling sexism for not coming out against other sexism.
So I and others are pointing out that these same people did not come out against the racism and xenophobia pointed at Obama, either. Therefore, their lack of attention to **either** issue means they probably weren't being sexist.
This is still relevant to a discussion of sexism, because it places it in context with other aspects of the society at large.
It is not even statistically possible to know for certain whether or not Hillary Clinton would have won or not without sexism.
Yes it is.
Here is how:
1. Obama won narrowly in the pledged delegate count, 1766.5 to 1639.5. That's a difference of 127. So, if Hillary had 64 more delegates, she would have won the pledged delegates.
2. After Super Tuesday, Obama went on to 11 straight wins - ALL of them in states that the Clinton campaign had little to NO campaign staff in place. They simply not planned for Obama to last after Super Tuesday.
3. This put Obama ahead 287.5 delegates. But Hillary's overall polling was roughly equal to Obama's at this time.
Therefore, sexism in the media or no - if Hillary spent anywhere near a comparable amount of money and campaign staff - even by going into debt - then she would have won **at least** another 64 delegates. But by the time the Clinton campaign realized they needed to do this, it was just too late.
My sources:
http://www.observer.com/2008/panettas-lament-they-had-no-plan
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008#Super_Tuesday
Now if any of those facts or my analysis is wrong, please point out why.
Otherwise, those are the simple facts.
-
@ AKA Smith
[Read the article: Bully for Nancy Pelosi!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]None of those numbers examines sexism.
Exactly. But those numbers do show why the Clinton campaign's strategic choices caused her to lose, and how she could just as easily have won. Therefore, Hillary's losing was not due to sexism as it's primary cause.
To sum up again:
1. Those numbers describe exactly why Hillary's decision not to campaign in states she didn't think would matter, caused her to lose.
2. And they also show how Hillary could have won, if her campaign had only been prepared to be active in those states. Even as a plan "B".
3. And so, even with the exact same amount of sexism that was regrettably in this campaign - if she had planned to campaign in those states, it's a statistical certainty she would have gotten the additional 64 pledged delegates she needed to beat Obama.
Therefore, since Hillary's losing is directly traceable to this decision on her part, sexism is not the main reason Hillary lost.
It's basically that simple.
Moreover, we have never had a female president or a self-identified black president. People can be influenced by the status quo. Is that sexism or racism? How do you quantify either?
I'm not quantifying either. They exist, but their very hard if not impossible to quantify. I much rather like looking at causes and effects of measurable things.
Hillary made a strategic choice, and that choice caused her to lose. Had she made a different choice, she almost certainly would have won. Sexism can and does affect any number of different things - but it did not affect that choice.