First I have to say I realize this is a hot button issue that is, unfortunately, likely to offend some people. Nevertheless, I would hope that my own gender is not enough to make anyone automatically presume that I would have any reason to be biased against Hillary Clinton because of hers. Speaking to that, I can only tell you who I am: An anti-war progressive man in his mid-40s, married to a feminist, and with a young daughter for whom I am fighting to have every opportunity a boy would have in this world. I have been of the opinion since well before I was married that America needs not just a woman President, but a majority of women in Government, at least in proportion to the actual populace. Moreover, I could easily be with Notorious RBG on this and say why not all women? After all, it's been all men; and we've seen what men have done to America.
Now, about that title. Of course, it's absurd. It's an absurd thing to say that you would let gender be the reason for your vote. But I will admit to having done it before — in the favor of female candidates. For example, in primary elections or non-partisan elections for judges between a woman and a man, when I've determined that essentially all other metrics look equal to me, I have voted for the woman. Because, as I said, I believe that more women in government is a good thing. So what I'm saying is, in this primary, all things do not look equal to me. But everyone has different expectations. One of the questions I'm asking is, "which of these candidates will approach this job more differently than all the men who have had it previously?" And for me, the answer to that question is Bernie Sanders.
I'd like to make some observations, ask some questions, and discuss them with people if they would care to do so in a civil, respectful manner. I've been following this election widely and discussing the candidates since the middle of last year, and I like to talk politics. Still, what I'm saying here isn't supported by scientific methods or polling, these are merely observations and opinions. However, I am a firm believer in using facts to support your opinions, so I'll do my best.
My first observation is to use myself as an example. Why? Because I am a liberal male voter who is completely open to having a woman as President. Aggressively open, even. It is long overdue. And yet I am supporting Sanders. And, just to be clear, I am certainly not supporting Sanders because he is a man. I'm supporting him because for me, he is right on all the issues that matter. More importantly, I believe he is the better candidate in the general. So I'm saying, when all things are equal, I would tend toward a female candidate. I've actually done this before in the voting booth. And yet in this case -- speaking only for myself -- all things do not look equal. To me, it's about who has been consistently right on the issues. This has nothing to do with gender.
My second observation is to use a simple substitution to also demonstrate a difference between gender and personality being a symptom of one's electoral difficulties. That is to say, speaking hypothetically, if this primary were Elizabeth Warren vs. Bernie Sanders, I would be supporting Elizabeth Warren, hands down. I love Bernie. Love him. But as before, I would be looking for the best candidate for the general election. And I think Elizabeth Warren could have easily proved that America is quite ready for a woman to be President. I think Hillary Clinton is only proving that America might not be ready for Hillary Clinton to be President.
My final observation is to ask some questions: In the 2016 Democratic primary, what do you think is the extent that Hillary Clinton is losing votes because of gender bias? Alternately, what do you think is extent that Hillary Clinton has been a beneficiary of gender-biased votes? Or, to put it another way — How many Democratic voters are voting for Hillary because she's a woman? How many Democratic voters are voting against her because she's a woman? How many Democratic voters are voting for Bernie because he's a man? Those all encompass some version of what gender-biased voting is. I realize it doesn't account for all of the years of subtle, institutional sexism, but I'm just wondering, for the primary alone, which candidate is most likely to be benefiting from any gender bias effect. I am only applying this to this Democratic primary, specifically because there are more female than male voters in the Democratic Party. Furthermore, according to available exit and entrance polls, more women than men have voted in the Democratic contests so far, and Hillary Clinton has won the majority of the female vote in most of them. And finally, because the Republican Party is full of misogynistic assholes and we already know there will be gender bias among that demographic in the general election against any woman running for President.
It's a shame that things like gender, race, and sexual orientation still actually play such a large role in our politics, when it ought to be about issues and which candidate has the best policies. I do tons of research on elections, because I prefer to be informed. That's the way I vote. And there is gender bias against Hillary Clinton, and it will be a factor in the general election. But I don't believe it is any large factor in the primary, and any that does exist against her is more than being counteracted against by that which exists in her favor. If anyone had any hard data to prove or disprove this, I’d certainly be interested to see it. As I've already said (and my sig says as well), I'll support her if she's the nominee.
Peace.
