Search Box

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Why Hillary doesn't attract white male voters

An article in NY Times yesterday, As Hillary Clinton Sweeps States, One Group Resists: White Men, explained why she is only getting 40% of the white male vote, even among Democrats.

Surprisingly, the article didn't demonize white males, but simply listed the reasons why they might not support her: her approval of the various trade pacts, her handling of Benghazi, her support for stricter gun control laws, her Wall Street ties, her pro-immigration stance, and her seemingly exclusive focus on minorities during the primaries.

All of which are true.

But they're also a little beside the point. The real reason Hillary doesn't entice white males is because -- as others have pointed out before me -- she reminds a lot of them of their ex-wife.

But why, exactly?

Could it be that she comes across like a shrill harridan who was a constant nag?

Who had a terrible temper, and would become enraged at you for things she herself regularly did?

Who talked feminism all the time, even though you were the breadwinner. But who was more than happy to take half your money in the divorce, and acted as if she had been the one to earn it?

Who basically hated men, and always stuck up for women over men, no matter the situation, but then accused you of sexism?

Who "discovered" late in life that, sexually, she preferred women to men? (In fact, she always preferred women, but just wouldn't admit it to herself, and you paid the price with a sexless marriage.)

The one who had a public personality completely different from her private persona?

The one who would lie all the time, to the point where you couldn't even tell if she believed her own lies?

Never figured I'd feel sorry for Bill Clinton, but I almost do.


Pavonine99 said...

I suspect that Trump reminds many women of their ex-husbands, as well. A bully who was never wrong, an overgrown child, humorless, with a limited emotional range.
Pretty terrible that the nation has to choose between them. But we get the leaders we deserve, I suppose.

John Craig said...

Pavonine --
Actually, that's a good point. Trump would be a hard guy to be married to.

And he is all those things you say, except for humorless. His sense of humor isn't bad, even if it's inappropriate for a Presidential candidate.

Pavonine99 said...

I don't know if I'd say he has a sense of humor. He knows how to make people laugh, but does he himself find things funny?

John Craig said...

Pavonine --
I'd say if you can make others laugh, you have a sense of humor. I know what you mean about him laughing, though, he may be so narcissistic that he doesn't like laughing at other people's jokes, it means that he's not the one who's the center of attention.

One crucial difference between Trump and Hillary: men who marry Hillary's generally don't fully realize what they're getting into, whereas any woman who married Trump would know full well what she was getting beforehand. Any woman who married Trump would essentially be making a deal, his money for their servitude. But at least they'd know ahead of time. I think a lot of guys have been blindsided by the Hillary's of the world.

Pavonine99 said...

There are a lot of guys who are Trump at heart, but who are able to put up a front of romantic interest. Trump himself is too much "of a piece" to pull that off.
I don't really see how a Hillary could fool anyone, personally. But whenever there's the possibility of romantic interest, people see what they want to see.

John Craig said...

Pavonine --
Yes, there are guys who act differently before and after marriage. And I agree, Trump wouldn't be able to pull that off. Then again, he would't have to. All he has to do is flash his cash and there are a lot of women who'd co me running.

I think there are women who put on sweet acts because they want to get married, then become more selfish as the marriage goes on. Sort of the equivalent of the guys who act different, I suppose. My guess is Hillary's initial act with Bill was, if not that of a sugar pie sweetie, at least far more agreeable than she turned out to be. What the Secret Service had to say about her was pretty amazing:

Steven said...

ha maybe so but I don't think she's much more popular with young white men. Reddit dislikes Hilary and the dominant demographic is young liberal white men. Reddit is openly anti-Hilary and pro Sanders.

Stupid thing is that Sanders apparently has a better chance in a national election against Trump than Hilary does yet she's going to win the nomination with the support of African Americans. thus they may be sending Trump to the whitehouse.

Incidentally, most of the no platforming I've heard about is from feminists. They seem be the group who has most embraced intolerance of offensive speech and who most vociferously enforce it. This is how bad it got at Oxford:

I would say out of all liberal groups, white men are probably the least given to identity politics and that's possibly a reason why they are more pro-Sanders.

John Craig said...

Steven --
True, Bernie is killing Hillary among the young white male AND female contingents.

The feminists at Oxford sound very much like……..feminists.

mark said...

I read the Post article and I think Hillary's attitude might be related to the fact that she believed troopers in Arkansas helped Bill maintain his active social life. I am more pro Hillary than you. I just think she is a very ordinary person who was abused by her husband. I never really understood why she stayed with Bill when very early in the relationship she knew what he was doing. I chalk it up to nativity and possibly insecurity. Her pedestrian intellect and accomplishments are her problem and not some exotic psychological illness.

Steven said...

ah I see. I think the main thing is they see her as dishonest and in bed with the banks. Enough reports about her character have got out, enough examples of lies and hypocrasy.

But in some ways, she seems a safer bet than Trump. A vote for Hilary is a vote for the status quo. You might think the current cultural (and demographic) direction is bad but she wouldn't do anything democracy or world peace threateningly awful. With Trump, who knows? He's a wild card. It could go either way.

John Craig said...

Mark --
I disagree. I think Hillary was just reflexively against everything that cops and Secret Service agents stand for…..And I don't see her as ordinary, if by that you mean "normal." She definitely has a witch-y aspect to her personality that is beyond the norm. Agree about the pedestrian intellect and lack of real accomplishments (unless one considers the titles themselves the accomplishments, and she's had an impressive set of those).

John Craig said...

I know what you're saying -- that Hillary would essentially just be eight more years of the Clinton administration, which is pretty much a known quantity at this point, whereas Trump is an unknown. But what we know about the Clintons is that they are corrupt, and have few principles. their list of scandals is endless. Trump is a loose cannon verbally, but I suspect he wouldn't govern that way, and at this point I'd prefer almost any unknown to Hillary.

Anonymous said...

Blacks don't vote on any rational basis. They vote for who their Big Man tells them to. For most of them that Big Man is their preacher. And the professional left has bought the preachers off. Bob Whitaker has been making that point for a long time and he is right.

The reason Trump will get some black vote is that some blacks see Trump as the real Big Man. And in a lot of ways this is true. He's fathered children by three high-market-value White women (and most black men, deep down, regard them as the best kind) and he lives a life of opulent surroundings and high value properties. Just seeing Trump on a stage with the Trump Jet in the background-it says TRUMP in large letters-is enough to convey Big Manitude in a way even Air Force One can't.

And I think Trump in turn has a certain fondness for blacks, at least for certain aspects of blackness that successful blacks such as the ones living in Trump properties convey. Black entertainers and athletes convey themselves in a way whites don't. Trump is loud, flamboyant, and does not suffer fools gladly. They see that positively.

Hillary on the other hand has to be understood for who she is. Without her, Bill Clinton would never have been President, would never have thought to run for office. She molded him, shaped him, propelled him. I doubt she knew how bad his sexual appetites and proclivities would turn out, but she got him in the White House anyway. At this point she likely doesn't care if he screws other women, but she was very outraged at how he kept getting caught at it, and still is. For her own part she prefers women herself, of course, but as lesbians of some stature and age are she's quite discreet about it.

What makes Hillary an existential threat to the Republic is not that she's a lesbian, nor that she's grasping, amoral,and ruthless. It's that despite her lust for power, she really has no idea how to wield it. Not as a man would among men, and not as a woman among women (think Anna Wintour), and not as the woman among men (Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir). Not even as a man among women (most any big gay fashion insider). She reminds me of that episode of Star Trek where the female scientist puts Kirk in the machine and swaps bodies with him, obsessed with being a man so she can be a starship captain, and proceeds to get herself kicked off the bridge. Given the Presidency, she would be the end of it as we know it.

That's why the serious white power guys (few as they are) are mostly not too upset by the prospect of President Hillary. They figure she'll bring the whole house of cards down, tout de suite, whereas Trump will make it function for another generation, or at least while he's in power. But the rest of us who do not want the coming of the Reich have damn good reason to be very afraid of this destructive, venomous bitch.

John Craig said...

Anon -
Interesting comment. I agree completely with your analysis of Hillary's character. Don't think she'd bring the Presidency itself down though. I think she'd just preside over the Republic's continued gradual decline. Immigration would continue its currently dysgenic path, the government would continue to expand (though not as rapidly as it did under Obama), and she would do whatever was politically expedient, as she has always done.

It's amazing what a President can get away with if the media refuses to dwell on something, and if people cover up for him. nixon was brought down by Watergate, but Obama has had at least four or five scandals which should have been just as bad -- Fast and Furious, IRS-gate (which was in fact much, much worse), Benghazi (and the arrest of that guy who made the anti-Muslim video), Solyndra, the handling of the VA, etc. Yet, somehow, a few months later, nobody is talking about these things because the media chooses to focus elsewhere. And Clinton will always be tarred by Monica-gate; yet Obama has pretty obviously put people on the payroll so he can have sex with them (Nick Colvin, Reggie Love, Kal Penn) and nobody says a thing. I suspect Hillary would get the same kid gloves treatment.

Bob Wallace said...

She's also a drunken dyke whose daughter Chelsea is the offspring of Webb Hubbell.

John Craig said...

Bob --
I just looked that up about Hubbell and it seems to be true. I'm amazed I'd never heard it before. Thanks for the scoop.