Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bubzer

(4,211 posts)
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 10:05 PM Mar 2016

Hillary Clinton's Internet Supporters Desperately Want This Campaign to be about Sexism

Considering the renewed calls that Bernie supporters are sexist, I thought it was a good time to address it.
If we see sexist or personal attacks against any democratic candidate, it needs to be denounced immediately. Sexist and personal attacks are unrepresentative of who we are. At the same time, it is not a personal attack to cite facts. Speaking of which... lets delve into some.

Primer:

1. Among female voters under the age of 45, Bernie Sanders holds a significant lead in the polls.
2. He’s received far more donations from females than Hillary Clinton.
3. Iowa showed that he won handily in the under-45 category, regardless of gender.

As it happens, there is absolutely a gap in support when it comes to Sanders and Clinton. But it’s not a gender gap—it’s an age gap. The exit polls in Iowa would have been stunning for the sharp contrast they painted between young and old voters, if that divide hadn’t already been reflected in just about every national poll that’s come out in the past two months. Sanders won the 17-29 youth demographic in a rout with 84 percent support, and though the margin was smaller in the 30-44 range, he still trounced Clinton 58 percent to 37 percent. Climb higher, though, and the situation changes drastically. Among voters 45-63, Clinton won 58-35 percent, and for 65 and older, Bernie was clobbered 69-26.
It’s simple math: Older people vote for Clinton, younger people vote for Sanders. I saw it at the precinct I observed Monday night, and the stats back it up.

In terms of the primary process, any sane candidate would much rather be in Clinton’s shoes—older voters are reliable, and the young are famously fickle. But when it comes to the Internet, youth abounds, and the overwhelming preference for Sanders in that domain is starting to anger Clinton’s small but devoted band of young supporters. Internet politics have a definite progressive slant—witness the thriving Sanders Reddit page, with 170,000 supporters and over a million dollars raised, compared to Clinton’s anemic answer —and it has quickly become clear to the Clinton devotees that comparing the two candidates on policy always ends poorly for their preferred candidate. Without getting into issues of honesty and authenticity, the fact is that Sanders is a far more progressive politician. In our noisy little online kingdom, that plays well.

The strategy of Clinton supporters had to shift, and the solution was obvious: Avoid policy, and make the campaign about sexism. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch. In fact, they simply had to reprise the old tactics from 2008, when “gender bias” was one of the most reliable arrows in Clinton’s quiver, and Obama supporters fretted about losing the female vote because of perceived abuse toward Clinton’s backers. It’s the same today, and it started with the “Bernie Bro” phenomenon—a fabricated demographic supposedly chock-full of misogynistic dudes whose support for Bernie is less about policy and more about keeping a hated female out of office.

The entire concept of a vast sexist conspiracy operating from the political left is ridiculous, and has been effectively debunked by Glenn Greenwald and Sam Kriss at Vice, but it’s worth looking at a specific example of its origins to examine the absurd, dishonest way it has gathered steam. I’ll take you step by step, with this post as a guide.

Lots more at the link...I also recommend seeing the comments
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/hillary-clintons-internet-supporters-desperately-w.html

Let's see what Glenn Greenwald and Sam Kriss have to say:
First, here's Glenn with: "The “Bernie Bros” Narrative: a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism"

The concoction of the “Bernie Bro” narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic — and a journalistic disgrace. It’s intended to imply two equally false claims: (1) a refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are “bros”); and (2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate).

It’s become such an all-purpose, handy pro-Clinton smear that even consummate, actual “bros” for whom the term was originally coined — straight guys who act with entitlement and aggression, such as Paul Krugman — are now reflexively (and unironically) applying it to anyone who speaks ill of Hillary Clinton, even when they know nothing else about the people they’re smearing, including their gender, age, or sexual orientation. Thus, a male policy analyst who criticized Sanders’ health care plan “is getting the Bernie Bro treatment,” sneered Krugman. Unfortunately for the New York Times Bro, that analyst, Charles Gaba, said in response that he’s “really not comfortable with [Krugman’s] referring to die-hard Bernie Sanders supporters as ‘Bernie Bros'” because it “implies that only college-age men support Sen. Sanders, which obviously isn’t the case.”

It is indeed “obviously not the case.” There are literally millions of women who support Sanders over Clinton. A new Iowa poll yesterday shows Sanders with a 15-point lead over Clinton among women under 45, while one-third of Iowa women over 45 support him. A USA Today/Rock the Vote poll from two weeks ago found Sanders nationally “with a 19-point lead over front-runner Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 31 percent, among Democratic and independent women ages 18 to 34.” One has to be willing to belittle the views and erase the existence of a huge number of American women to wield this “Bernie Bro” smear.

But truth doesn’t matter here — at all. Instead, the goal is to inherently delegitimize all critics of Hillary Clinton by accusing them of, or at least associating them with, sexism, thus distracting attention away from Clinton’s policy views, funding, and political history and directing it toward the online behavior of anonymous, random, isolated people on the internet claiming to be Sanders supporters. It’s an effective weapon when wielded by Clinton operatives. But, given its blatant falsity, it has zero place in anything purporting to be “journalism.”

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/

And the there this from Sam: Bernie Bros and Momentum Bullies: How the Powerful Use Internet Trolls to Play the Victim

Every tribe needs its mythical figures, big striding symbols that can gather together the general mess of humanity into a simple archetype. Lately, Western society has developed a new one: the Bernie Bro. He is a young male whose chief interests are partying, knocking back some brews, hating women, and, for some reason, tepid socialist politics. He supports Bernie Sanders in his race for the Democratic nomination in the US presidential election, because the Bernie Bro does not want Hillary Clinton, a woman, to take power. He demonstrates this support by being crude and abusive to Clinton supporters online, pumped up by male self-righteousness, socialist insensitivity, internet anonymity, and creatine. He is thoughtless, vicious, and stupid. He also doesn't really exist, but that's not really any problem for a myth.

It certainly hasn't stopped him being the subject of a recent flurry of anthropological studies: TIME magazine warns against the "smug-sounding Sanders supporters", Mashable calls them "the most obnoxious people on the internet", and even the BBC reports that "Bernie Sanders supporters get a bad reputation online." As has been pointed out, there's scant evidence for any of this, but it doesn't matter – if you can successfully collapse thousands of people into some hideous metonym, it's impossible to prove that this fictional character did or didn't do anything.

This isn't to say that some Sanders supporters haven't been occasionally vitriolic. But if you're on the internet and you say anything that anyone might plausibly disagree with, you will immediately find yourself encountering dozens of implausibly angry single men looking to talk to someone new. (Look out for them below the line on this article!) There is no cause so peaceful and progressive and self-evidently justified that it won't have, scurrying behind it in the churned-up mud of the social field, thousands of fanatical cockroaches. The idea that there's a concerted campaign of abuse coming from the political left has a lot to do with selective focus: you're much less likely to see the abuse when it's coming from your own side. The Bernie Bro became a phenomenon because opinion writers in establishment publications tend to support Clinton, and because these people labour under the bizarre and false impression that their audiences want to read about how unpleasant other people were on Twitter.

There's no better example of this than The Sunday Times's Camilla Long, who voiced a fairly thoughtless and insensitive opinion on the death of David Bowie and then managed to spin the inevitable backlash into a long blubbery column on the cruelty of crowds. For reasons that still don't entirely make sense, it's people like this who get to shape the general discourse. They're famous, so when they're rude to people it's just a case of poor judgement, while when other people are rude back, it's violence on the part of an angry, faceless, idiot mob, and everyone needs to know about it.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/sam-kris-bernie-bros-internet-abuse-820

In short? Hillarians would love "proof" of the claim that Bernie bros are just a bunch of sexist pricks. Don't give them any.
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

yourout

(7,520 posts)
1. I would love to have voted for a woman(Warren). Just not this one.
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 10:10 PM
Mar 2016

If it would have been between Warren and Bernie I really don't know which way I would have went.

Good chance I would have went with Warren.

jillan

(39,451 posts)
3. The fact that they are playing the sexism card is sexism. How can they not see that? Obama was the
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 10:30 PM
Mar 2016

first black President because he was the perfect person to be President for the last 8 years - who just happened to be black.

IF Bernie becomes the first Jewish President it will be because he is the best person to be President right now to bring our country back to the people and away from the corporations - and oh yeah - he just happens to be Jewish.

If Hillary becomes President it needs to be because she is the right person to lead the country right now that just happens to be a woman.

Voting for someone because of their genitals, their religion, the color of their skin IS NOT the primary reason to vote for that person. That is secondary and yes, it does add excitement to their candidacy.



 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
4. Anyone that thinks Bernie's support is driven by sexism is a blind, arrogant, malicious fool. [n/t]
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 10:40 PM
Mar 2016

Bubzer

(4,211 posts)
9. I defniately agree.
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 12:03 AM
Mar 2016

I'm more than done with the tired old trope that anyone who isn't a Hillary supporter is a sexist.

Jarqui

(10,110 posts)
5. In Michigan exit polls Hillary won women by 1% 49%-48% Sanders
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 10:59 PM
Mar 2016

With men, 57% Sanders - 42% Clinton

Elizabeth Warren senate vote, she won women 59% to 41%, lost men 47%-53%
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/MA/senate/

I'd have zero problem voting for Elizabeth Warren. I'd take her over most if not all male politicians in the country because I trust her, respect her, I think she knows what is going on, I think she's capable of managing problems & I like many of her policy positions. Outside of domestic policies I reserve judgment.

I support Bernie and Obama and Biden for many of the same reasons. Recently, I was impressed by Tulsi Gabbard for standing up to DWS and she speaks quite well - didn't know anything about her before this year - not as president at this moment but maybe one to watch as she gets experience. (I used to like DWS ... how sad is that ..- never as a candidate for president)

I tend to like most of the Democratic women politicians and not like most of the Republican women candidates as much. I always liked Barbara Bush ... and did not mind the GOP First Ladies generally - in many cases I liked them more than their husbands.

I haven't been supportive of Hillary using similar criteria: I don't trust her, I do not respect her because of her dishonesty, I do think she largely knows what is going on, I do not think she's capable of managing the problem because I do not trust her judgement nor her ability to think things through & I do like many of her policy positions compared to the GOP - I just like Bernie's positions better. And I do not think Hillary has accomplished as much as she claims.

The integrity issue is a big, big deal for me when it comes to Hillary. It's hard for me to respect someone who won't respect others with integrity.

Bubzer

(4,211 posts)
8. There are few politicans who have earned the ammount of distrust she's garnered.
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 11:59 PM
Mar 2016

She simply isn't trustworthy.

Jarqui

(10,110 posts)
11. In 2007, I barely knew who Obama was
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 12:24 AM
Mar 2016

I started out leaning Biden because i'd followed him for years. I liked Joe - still do.

But I was receptive to considering Hillary and Edwards and was intrigued some by Kucinich.

My mind wasn't made up. My sister sent me all kinds of stuff on Obama and won me over.

But these were all Democrats. We're all on the same side.

Off the primaries went, Obama won Iowa and took off.

And then the Clintons started pulling all this dirty crap and lying, etc. By June, I was long past enough with Hillary.

Obama asks her to be Secretary of State. Reminds me of what he said about Lincoln - keep your enemies closer ...

Hillary seems to be playing ball. She's not causing trouble. No dirty tricks or lying. Benghazi happened but like so many terrorist attacks under Bush, it was one more.

At this point, I've cooled down. I say to myself "You know what? She's been decent to Obama. No trouble. If she runs, I'm going to give her another look." and that's how I came into this thing. I knew Bernie - liked what I saw from his TV appearances but I wasn't taking him too seriously as I really didn't know as much about him as I thought.

Then she holds her press conference on the emails. Sounds ok ... until it's fact checked. More lying. The Clinton Foundation. Another Clinton scandal. When she started to lie about an honest man like Bernie - probably the most honest politician I've ever seen, that did it. And then she's kept it up for the last 60 days or so. Well, I'm back to June 2008. I can't stand her.

I honestly and truly came into this basically cleaning the slate for her and forgiving her because she hadn't messed with Obama. In my mind, she'd earned a second chance. And it went right off the rails because of her constant lack of integrity.

I'd support a bisexual amoeba for president if I thought they'd make the best president. It has zero to do with her gender and a lot to do with her character.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
6. Well, when hoping Elizabeth Warren enters the race is construed as "classic case of rape culture",
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 11:08 PM
Mar 2016

I'd say their imaginations are open to anything.

Bubzer

(4,211 posts)
13. LOL...I feel your pain! I really do!
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 01:24 AM
Mar 2016

I can't help but want to say: No...there is no "we"... my Mother Birthed me...you get zero claim to that.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
14. she's your abuelita AND your mom!
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 01:31 AM
Mar 2016

it's a funny story involving a contraceptive and a time machine ...

kath

(10,565 posts)
15. Bubzer, could you please cross-post this in GDP?
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 01:36 AM
Mar 2016

They're really going bonkers with the "Sexism! sexism!!" Bullshit today, and this post is a good counter to it.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
16. Well this old feminist gal...
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 02:17 AM
Mar 2016

...won't be editing her remarks for fear that someone's feelings will be hurt, or that someone will deliberately misinterpret what I am saying so they can drum up some faux-feminist outrage.

As a feminist, of course I would love to see a woman President, and if the candidates were equally appealing, then her being a female might have been a deciding factor. But Sanders is hands down a better candidate by my standards, so he is who I will support in this primary.

And for all who try to portray her as a victim: you aren't doing her any favors. As a woman, she needs to seem more strong than a man in the same role would. But when she and her supporters keep trying to claim victim status, instead she comes off as weak.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Hillary Clinton's Interne...