Posted on 03/15/2018 5:47:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Shocking news. The most fatally flawed presidential candidate in American history was reincarnated last week in India to do an encore comedy routine about her political corpse. Hillary Clinton explained the female problems that caused her unexpected political demise in backwards America to a presumably liberated, progressive, and sexually equal audience in Mumbai at the India Today Conclave. The bewildered Indians probably couldn’t comprehend the primitive sexism they were hearing about:
Women candidates, explained the famed political scientist, “don’t do well with married, white women. And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”
Back in the US, the Clinton Pity Memorial Tour produced bipartisan criticism. According to the Congressional newspaper The Hill, Democrats and Republicans alike called her words “cringe worthy,” “absurd,” “annoying and wrong.” “Who lets her say these things?” one former Clinton surrogate wondered.
You might think reviews like that would quickly shush Clinton and her institutional defenders. You would be wrong because you would underestimate the iron grip identity politics has on the Left. “Like it or not, studies suggest that Clinton may not be wrong on white women voting like their husbands” bellowed Washington Post columnist Eugene Scott.
Scott tried to breathe life into Clinton’s odd post-mortem by citing a study co-authored by Oregon State University assistant professor Kelsy Kretschmer which purports to show husbands exert significant pressure on how women vote. “We know white men are more conservative, so when you’re married to a white man you get a lot more pressure to vote consistent with that ideology,” Kretchner elaborated.
The very strange thing about this sequence--Clinton claims women voters obeyed men; liberal politicians rebuke her; liberal academics and journalists jump to defend her--is that it is a near identical repeat of events of six months ago when Clinton made the same claim in an interview with NPR.
At the time, it was the left-leaning Guardian newspaper that leapt to rescue Clinton from harm at her own hand. The paper ran a story: “Why Hillary Clinton was right about white women – and their husbands.”
Like the Post, the Guardian cited Kretchner’s study. It is a testament to how unsupportable Clinton’s argument is that liberals have not been able to come up with a better defense. The study—or rather the political conclusion attributed to it--is bunk. Published in Political Research Quarterly, Kretchner’s work does not demonstrate pressure imposed by males, but rather women making self-interested decisions in their own life circumstances. Don’t take my word for it. Let the author debunk her own political premise by describing her work to the Guardian.
Reporter Lucia Graves sets the stage mournfully: “Given the opportunity to make history by electing the first female president, women didn’t take it. And ironically, the women who bore the most resemblance to Clinton – white, heterosexual and married – were less likely to vote for her.” Graves rehearses Clinton’s theory of tremendous manpressuring and concedes “people might scoff at the idea that women vote based on what husbands and fathers tell them to do.” But, she assures us, “Social science backs up Clinton’s anecdotal hunch.”
Graves hands the microphone to Kretschmer, who recites the long observed fact that married women tend to vote more conservatively than single women. So far so good, but here, the pressure hypothesis—and any support for Clinton’s theory—collapses.
The elephant in the room is women’s perception of their own interests. “’Just being married makes women more conservative in their vote choice,’” Kretchmer explains. Graves concedes “Individually speaking, such voting behavior is more rational than it may sound.” Then she launches into high proof identity narrative. “The key distinction, according to Kretschmer’s research, is that single women tend to cast votes with the fate of all women in mind, while women married to men vote on behalf of their husbands and families.”
Got that? Single women vote for Womankind. Married women vote for husbands and kids. The first thing to observe is there’s no suggestion of “tremendous pressure” from anyone, just different women’s priorities in voting. The second thing to observe is that Graves and Kretchner conflate a handful of liberal issues–expansive abortion, equal pay (which has been the law of the land for decades), more aggressive employment litigation theories—with women’s interests as a whole, and dismiss other concerns that are perfectly rational motivations for female voters.
Their anecdotal coup de grace is telling:
“A college-educated woman identifying as a liberal Democrat confided to Kretschmer – not wanting to be identified, as a Trump voter – that she had voted for him over Clinton because her husband’s job depends on the coal industry; she saw Trump as the candidate that would protect it, and by extension her family’s economic interests. Kretschmer called her story “the clearest, most heartbreaking validation of our article that I had ever heard.”
This conclusion is wishful thinking. The story does not confirm male pressure. It reveals female decision-making. There’s no arm twisting. There’s simply a self-described liberal woman voting for the candidate who promised to protect her family’s livelihood over the candidate who cackled she was “going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
Rather than the bully thesis, it is more accurate to say Kretschmer’s study shows married women are more likely to vote for policies that support strong economic opportunity and family security than they are to vote for the Daddy-Hubby State envisioned byPresident Obama’s animated campaign character, Julia. Recall Julia was an apparently single mother who credited her life successes to a cradle-to-grave series of government programs. The primary difference between Julia and the woman Kretchmer interviewed is not male pressure, but their different priorities and desires, one for more government help, the other for greater responsibility and independence.
That is an important divide. If married women vote more conservative and single women vote more liberal, it’s not because of orders issued by the men. Hillary’s self-serving theory is still hanging out there, rearing its head again, still offensive, and still looking stupid.
I have another theory based on social science research into the matter. First I need to not that like the two social scientists interviewed, I too am a social scientist.
Single liberal women either vote democrat because their families voted democrat, they have taken a drink from the “I hate all men” well or because they are subjected to group think more than their married counterparts and the result is they fall in line with the propaganda, hoping to fit in.
Another theory I have is after 30 years in or around politics, Hillary from day one had clouds of corruption and left wing ideology swirling above her head, in the open for all to see. Those blinded by their left wing ideology put their hands over their ears and said, “I can’t hear you” while logic and reason said if Hillary wasn’t in politics she would be locked away at Joliet.
A third theory, (yes, I am a very busy social scientist) said over half of the country despises the shrew for the exact things she is going around the world saying to anyone who will give her the time of day. She despises middle America, she hates women, minorities and those in the lower income classes, yet she poorly makes attempts to say she is one of them, after bashing them. For her constituency and the liberal mindset, this is akin to wanting to make peace with those committed to destroying you. We saw shades of this with her reset button and Russia, which she bungled, demonstrating another side or her that many Americans see; her incompetence.
“Hillary Clinton explained the female problems......”..
The only “female problems” that caused her loss to Trump was SHE herself. Should she plan to run again in 2020, she will have to “transgender” to be rid of those personal female problems. Better yet, she should croak and save us all a lot of anguish.
Interestingly, Hillary’s fall is attributable in part to her overweening self-importance. As with many ancient archaeological sites (and many temples and other constructions still in use) in India, the stone steps she was walking down were heavily worn in the middle, having been polished smooth by tens of thousands of feet. Had Hillary walked down the stairs by stepping on the treads on one side or the other, she would have had an easier time maintaining her footing. I know I’ve nearly slipped once or twice while climbing or descending worn temple steps in India, and I’m in much better health than she is.
However, she (apparently) had to maintain the appearance of the Most Important Person in the vicinity, and tried to regally descend those steps as if she owned the place. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if someone hadn’t advised her not to use the middle of the steps, and she ignored it since it came from someone “lesser” than her.
At this point, Hillary Clinton is a complete joke. Republicans love seeing her in the news because we know she will inevitably put her foot in her mouth and say something grating, stupid or obnoxious. Dems cringe when she is in the news. Its so satisfying. This is a woman who held political power and used it to advance a corrupt, radical Left agenda and to shamelessly enrich herself, for most of my adult political life. Now she’s a bitter joke. I’ll say it again: that is so satisfying. It would be icing on the cake if she was indicted on some criminal charges. I won’t hold my breath on that though. I guess I’d settle for a video surfacing of her being visibly drunk and ranting and raving about how much she hates conservative voters and how unfair life is followed by a crying jag.
There she goes, again.......lacerating women.
The mean old crone apparently is oblivious to her own mouthings.
Since her husband got lewinskied in the Oval Office, Hillary has been on a rampage against women.
With our tax dollars she ran a Bimbo Eruption Team in the WH that operated for eight years to put-down demean and diminish any woman who dared accuse her penis-twitching husband.
The loser oughta wake up and realize somebody out there in those “backward states” is connecting the dots.
So it is female group think vs pressure by husbands. Either way, women don't use their own independent rational judgment
How is her hand doing?
What is so remarkable about the Clintons is the contrast in their basic political makeup. While they both share the same level of corruption and narcissistic ambitions, Bill’s political instincts are platinum-level while Hillary’s are tin - if not wooden. It has always been so - however, Hillary’s ambitions are much stronger than Bill’s; it’s obvious she’s been the driving force behind their ascent to power.
Extreme political ambition, zero instincts. Does she realize this singular inability in herself? Hard to say; I’m sure she has built iron-clad psychological barriers to prevent such self-examination. But the doubts probably creep in from time to time. And the excuses she’s concocted for her failures will at times likely fail her defense mechanisms. This may be the root cause of her alcoholism.
It’s VERY SIMPLE. Married women usually have kids - they have a reason to vote to NOT DESTROY our country.
Single women, at least in this context, simply hate men and vote to screw over men, which means they vote Democrat.
So I’d say the MORE IMPORTANT question is why do single women vote to destroy this country, when the vast majority of them, even if they have no kids, have relatives that they love who do have kids? It’s not for economic reasons, as they generally made decent money...so maybe the answer is as I stated above?
(obviously I’m generalizing here...and there are plenty of conservative, America-loving, single women - just not the majority)
Looks like she just got a haircut and still has the barber’s cape on.
============================================
LEGEND---Donation to Clinton Foundation/Global Initiative (CGI)--followed by favor conferred in return.
================================================
<><>Prince of Abu Dhabi and Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates
Shaikh Abdullah bin Zayed al Nahayan and the Al Nahayan family of Abu Dhabi. <$5,000,000 Access to HRC at State Dept. and a $500,000 environmental speech by Bill Clinton given at the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi while HRC was meeting in Washington with Shaikh Abdullah.
<><> Algeria <$500,000 State Dept clearance for U.S. arms sales to Algeria. Deal included biological and chemical agents.
<><>Australia, Commonwealth of <$75,000,000 Strong State Dept. for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which stands to be a boon for Australian multinational firms.
<><>Bahrain, Kingdom of <$250,000 Muted criticism by State of Bahrain’s abysmal human rights practices.
<><>Boeing Corp.<$900,000 State Dept. clearance for $29 billion arms U.S. arms sale to Saudi Arabia, including Boeing’s F-15 fighter.
<><>Brunei Darussalam, Sultanate of < $5,000,000 State Dept. clearance for U.S. weapons sales to Brunei.
<><>Cameroon, Republic of<$100,000 Influence buying by the Cameroon government with the Clinton State Department.
<><>Govt of Canada <$500,000 State Dept. support for Canada’s Keystone XL pipeline, later vetoed by Obama.
<><> Chagoury Group <$5,000,000 in cash and a $1,000,000,000 pledge HRC delayed designating Nigeria’s Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization because of Chagoury Group’s investments and operations in Nigeria. Chagoury Group received the “Sustainable Development Award” from the CGI. Chagooury helped the family of Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha hide his wealth stolen from Nigeria’s oil revenues.
<><> Confederation of Indian Industry <$1,000,000 Access for Indian businesses to U.S. government officials.
==========================================
In addition to the Clinton Global Initiative, there are separate
Clinton family foundations that maintain their own revenue streams.
All these entities maintain separate operations for the Clintons’
pay-to-play global racketeering operations:
<><>the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI),
<><>the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton (BHCC) Foundation,
<><>the Clinton Foundation Hong Kong,
<><> William J. Clinton Foundation Charitable Trust (Kenya),
<><>William J. Clinton Foundation Charitable Trust (UK),
<><> the Clinton Foundation Insalingsstiftelse (Sweden).
<><> the Clinton/Guistra Partnership, Canada.
=====================================
Note that all of the Clinton's activities operated as a shadow government----setting up the foreign policy machinery for when she was elected president. It's obvious these govt entities were sown a carrot on a stick --- promised much b/c they had a potential US president in their hip pockets.
/s
“Kretschmer called her story “the clearest, most heartbreaking validation of our article that I had ever heard.”
So why is it heartbreaking that the democrat woman who voted for Trump voted for her own interests?
Isn’t that exactly what these leftists are always screaming for women to do?
I know, I know .. only if it fits the agenda.
Women most like her may be white and married but she’s not heterosexual.
Hillary says white married woman are “standing by their men”. She has stood by her man when he raped women and then tried to destroy the women.
Exactly.
When I had two grown daughters still at home, they and their mother would have me go to the poll first on election day, so that they could find out how I voted. Then they all went in and voted the same.
Pressure? Only if I tried to send any of them in first! Then the pressure would be on -- ME!
We keep saying that she stumbled, and she lost her footing, etc.
And we say that this means she isn’t very healthy. Certainly not spry.
But you guys have it all wrong. What you saw there was called “Slithering down the stairs” and it means she’s healthy and slithering.
Its the standing that isn’t healthy for this vomitous worm in pantsuits.
Why do we keep giving her an audience. If we ignore her, or better yet, laugh at her, she’ll lose her sway over the political landscape.
Can we get the IRS to take away the Foundation’s charitable exemption based on how little charity it performs? While we’re at it, task the IRS to review ALL such exemptions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.