Hillary Clinton is even less popular now than she was when she was running for president — and according to an article in the Huffington Post, that’s because she’s a woman.
A little background: According to a Bloomberg poll that was released earlier this week, Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating is now at 39 percent — lower than the 43 percent rating that she had during her presidential run — making her the only losing candidate since 1992 to not see an increase in favorability after losing an election, according to Gallup data cited by the Huffington Post.
Now, why could that be? Could it be because she insists on blaming other people — including some of the people who supported her — for her loss? Could it be because she’s still so desperately trying to look cool and hip that she’s hocking “Nasty Woman” T-shirts for Samantha Bee on Twitter? Is it her bitterness, or her stubborn refusal to accept the past?
In other words: Could the difference in Clinton’s post-election approval rating be, in fact, her own post-election behavior, seeing as it’s distinctly different from the post-election behavior that we saw from John McCain or Mitt Romney?
That seems like a pretty reasonable explanation to me, but good ol’ HuffPost has decided to focus on something else instead:
“There is, of course, one thing that sets her apart from the pack of failed candidates: Clinton is a woman,” Emily Peck writes in the article, titled “Why Hillary Clinton Is Really Unpopular — Again.”
Women with strong ambitions and opinions typically take a likability hit, Colleen Ammerman, director of Harvard Business School’s Gender Initiative, told HuffPost.
A mountain of research on women leaders has found that the idea of a powerful woman runs counter to most people’s expectations for what’s considered feminine –quiet, supportive, nurturing and definitely not ambitious.
According to Peck, people tend to hate strong women who voice their opinions. Therefore, the reason that Clinton keeps becoming less and less popular is because she just keeps voicing and voicing her opinions!
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that Clinton doesn’t really blame herself for her loss.
Now, I’d never argue that sexism doesn’t make it tough to be a woman in a position of power. Of course it does. A lot of people are uncomfortable with female leaders — but in this case, I think to chalk up Hillary Clinton’s post-campaign unlikability to that would be to ignore the obvious truth: Hillary’s main problem has not been that she’s voicing her opinions as a woman, but what those opinions actually are.
Although Peck claims that “Clinton said she took personal responsibility for her defeat,” anyone who has been paying attention knows that Clinton doesn’t really blame herself for her loss. How do I know? Well, because every chance she gets, she’s blaming someone else for her loss.
First it’s sexism, then it’s the media, then it’s Internet content farms in Macedonia. She even had the nerve to blame the Democratic National Committee. Yes, the same DNC that wanted her to win so badly that it broke the rules to help her, the same DNC whose chairwoman had to resign after it got busted rigging the nomination process in her favor. I mean seriously: If I were Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and I got myself fired for helping rig the nomination for Clinton? And then she essentially blamed me for losing? Well, I’ve got to say, she’d lose a couple of likability points from me, too. In fact, Hillary Clinton has blamed so many damn people for her election loss that it in itself could explain the decline in her post-election popularity. After all, maybe the reason that some of the people who liked her before don’t like her now is that they have since been blamed for her losing.
Peck says that it isn’t so much about what Hillary Clinton is actually saying, as it is the fact that she’s saying it as a woman. I say — for the love of God, don’t encourage her.