There are many well qualified female Democrats.

[guillaumeb]

HRC, of course, was far superior.
Warren is far superior.
Harris is far superior.
Klobuchar is far superior.
All of them would be far superior to Trump, or any other GOP candidate.

But for the US corporate media, policies do not matter. Qualifications do not matter. Intelligence and accomplishment do not matter.

What matters is likeability. And what exactly is likeability, and why is it seen as the most important criterion for a female candidate?

My own view is that when the corporate media refer to likeability, they are referring to sexual attractiveness. And a vital part of that perceived attractiveness is attitude. And that attitude must include not being seen as too dominant.

Kamala Harris was seen as too dominant. She would have been brutal on Trump in any legitimate debate format. Warren as well. Too dominant.

But the US corporate media will not honestly admit that, so they fall back on likeability.

[Salviati]

1. Probably a lot of truth to that

unfortunately...

[Demsrule86]

2. Nonsense she couldn't get support.

[guillaumeb]

3. We disagree.

Likeability is never applied to male GOP candidates. It is a vague term.

[DURHAM D]

4. Likeability equals boy parts. EOS

[guillaumeb]

10. And, they must be white.

Otherwise, they are scary.

[The Mouth]

5. Likability is pretty rare

period.

And has nothing to do with competence.

Lots of people thought GWB 'Likable'

Something I've observed- women who act 'likable' get hurt at the bottom of the totem pole, it's great for a line worker, but hell for the women trying to climb higher it seems. So the women that rise to the top *have* to develop a really severe, cold, professional demeanor just to be taken seriously, at least as I've observed to corporate world. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

A woman who was overtly as friendly as Bill Clinton or Joe Biden wouldn't be taken seriously, a woman who has a dearly serious demeanor, like Warren or Harris isn't 'likable'.

I know her politics were horrid, but Margaret Thatcher split the difference quite well, a bot of the common touch, a bit of the professional remoteness.

[guillaumeb]

11. One can be serious, and likeable.

And much of this supposed likability is determined by the corporate media. Per that media filter, a man is determined, and driven, while a woman is cold.

[The Mouth]

12. Yea, sort of

It's hard, though, particularly for a female, but not easy even for men. Part of Obama's massive advantage over everyone since Bill Clinton was that he projected both. Reagan, FDR, maybe JFK, charisma is rare.

And really, Senator Harris is of a newer generation, women much older than her pretty much *HAD* be to deadly serious to be taken seriously.

It's not impossible, but astonishingly rare

[guillaumeb]

13. The exception to all of this is Trump.

He openly appeals to the worst side of his followers. He has no real charisma. He is simply a loud bully who appeals to other bullies because he says what they are generally too frightened to say in public.

[The Mouth]

14. But, as with Joe

he had been preparing for his run in 2016 for many years.

As did Hillary.

Personally, I think what sunk Harris, and will sink Yang and Pete, is the infrastructure. An organization that can support a run for president takes many years to get into place. Hillary, Biden and Trump, in each case decades of building a network, not the two years or so of Harris, Pete, and Yang. Many thousands of favors, many thousands of contacts, that doesn't happen in two or three years.

I think we are only now seeing the staying power that Biden has as a result of decades of favors done and contacts made. Hillary was preparing since the turn of the century; Trump had made hundreds of appearances on Fox "News" and other outlets before he announced, etc.

[guillaumeb]

17. And Trump, as we all know, was the recipient of totally biased coverage.

The media created the myth of Trump, the business success, when in fact he was a failure. And this media coverage was deliberate, in my view.

As Leslie Moonves essentially said, it was all about advertising revenue.

[redqueen]

6. IMO it's just charisma.

Whether it's framed as likeability or who you'd rather have a beer with, it all boils down to charisma.

I've heard it said that appearance matters more but I think it's a more nebulous combination of factors.

[thesquanderer]

7. Exactly right. Likability/charisma is not a female/misogynistic thing.

Hillary, Gore, and Kerry were all somewhat unlikable. Stiff, unrelatable to many people. GWB was famously the guy you'd rather have a beer with. Obama oozed charisma.

[The Mouth]

15. Complex events have complex causes

No one factor is everything. The old 'necessary' as opposed to 'sufficient' factors:

-Charisma
-related to the above -energized by campaigning; Obama, Clinton, Trump *LOVE* the actual process, Hillary, Gore, McCain did not; and it shows.
-Organization
-a compelling narrative, a vision (however repugnant your opponents might find it)/ a message.
-Money
-Name recognition
-luck

Without all of those, one is at a real disadvantage.

[redqueen]

21. Agreed on all points.

Especially the part about enjoying the process. I saw a piece by a Dem official in the early states and they said that it's really obvious which candidates are happy to stand around and spend face time with voters, and which ones are 'gritting their teeth' as they put it.

I just don't think 'likeability' is only a thing for women.

[appalachiablue]

8. The US is particularly behind & backward in this regard esp.

in view of the achievements of other female world leaders, as pointed out for decades: Angela Merkel, Theresa May, Mary Robinson (Pres. of Ireland, 1990-1997), Mgt. Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, many more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Women_World_Leaders

'Charisma' has been especially emphasized in America since Obama.

[question everything]

9. After the 2016 elections, a man from PA the area that went for

Trump, expressed his opinion that the presidency is a job for a man. I am sure that there are many - men and women still holding this opinion. Yes, a woma should be on the ticket for the merit, not for identity.

[guillaumeb]

19. And this man was open about his misogyny.

And if he voted for Trump, that tells me much about this voter's ability to make decisions.

[StarfishSaver]

16. Studies have been done that show a woman is considered acceptable until she seeks a promotion or

higher office.

Women are expected to stay in their place, be grateful they were "allowed" to hold certain positions and not get so uppity and ambitious that they try to move up the ladder.

America loves women like Hillary Clinton–as long as they’re not asking for a promotion

It’s hard to remember these days, but just a few years ago, everybody loved Hillary Rodham Clinton. When she stepped down as US secretary of state in January 2013 after four years in office, her approval rating stood at what the Wall Street Journal described as an “eye-popping” 69%. That made her not only the most popular politician in the country, but the second-most popular secretary of state since 1948.

The 2012 “Texts from Hillary” meme, which featured a sunglasses-clad Clinton scrolling through her Blackberry aboard a military flight to Libya, had given rise to a flood of think pieces hailing her “badass cool.” The Washington Post wanted president Barack Obama to give vice president Joe Biden the boot and replace him with Clinton. Taking stock of Clinton’s approval ratings, Nate Silver noted in a 2012 piece for the New York Times that she currently held “remarkably high numbers for a politician in an era when many public officials are distrusted or disliked.”

How times have changed. “The FBI And 67 Percent of Americans Distrust Hillary Clinton,” booms a recent headline in the Huffington Post. Clinton’s favorability ratings currently hover around 40.8%. Bob Woodward complains that “there is something unrelaxed about the way she is communicating.” “Hillary’s personality repels me,” Walker Bragman writes in Salon.
...
When women do overcome the ambition gap, we punish them for it. One Harvard study found that “when participants saw female politicians as power-seeking, they also saw them as having less communality (i.e., being unsupportive and uncaring), while this was not true for their perceptions of power-seeking male politicians.” Power-seeking men were seen as strong and competent. Power-seeking women were greeted by both sexes with “moral outrage.”

Thus, the single worst thing a female politician can do to herself is to look for a job in politics. We can accept women in power, but not women’s desire for more of it.

https://qz.com/624346/america-loves-women-like-hillary-clinton-as-long-as-theyre-not-asking-for-a-promotion/

[guillaumeb]

18. A nice observation.

And in this country, women are not considered to be fit or acceptable I the highest office.

[StarfishSaver]

20. Here's a discussion of this

https://qz.com/624346/america-loves-women-like-hillary-clinton-as-long-as-theyre-not-asking-for-a-promotion/

[guillaumeb]

22. From your citation:

If you find this hypothesis unlikely, there’s Ann Friedman’s explanation: Clinton makes people uncomfortable by succeeding too visibly. Clinton is trapped in “the catch-22 of female ambition,” Friedman writes: “To succeed, she needs to be liked, but to be liked, she needs to temper her success.”

So HRC's "fault", was that she was too smart. Amazing. Thank you for the article.

[StarfishSaver]

23. Yep!

[booley]

24. Who do you want to have a beer with?

Remember that question from the 2000 election?

Dubya was seen as friendly. Gore was seen as stiff.

Sanders meanwhile is "too cranky"

Not saying there isn't misogyny on how the news is covered.

But I don't' think the evidence supports that the likability problem is just on female candidates. The media can be equally shallow in how they present candidates.

How to explain then that Harris started off so strong? She was favored to win only a few months ago.

[guillaumeb]

25. Harris had 2 and 1/2 strikes against her.

She is black, and female.

And she is intelligent, which some do not prefer.

As to Bush Jr., that image, like Reagan's image, was also enabled and created by the US corporate media.

[booley]

29. That doesnt' explain why she started out so strong

I mean she was a black woman when she started, right?

It wasn't a secret.

But her numbers were good when she began. She was considered a top tier candidate for a while at least.

Something else was going on.

[guillaumeb]

30. Perhaps the US media paying much more attention to the other candidates?

She was in the top tier, but at that point, all were equally low.

Then we had the Beto phase/craze, and the media did what it does best. Focus on superficialities.

[StarfishSaver]

26. But Sanders "crankiness" is seen as endearing

Imagine how a woman with Sanders' affect and demeanor would be received on the national political stage.

Short answer: she wouldn't be. She'd never have gotten anywhere near a national political stage, much less into the top tier of presidential candidates.

And the fact that she "started off" strong doesn't mean much. Lots of women and minorities "start off" great - but when push comes to shove, people always find reasons they just aren't "right" for the job.

[getagrip_already]

28. not to me... nor is the finger wagging.....

2 things I could do without.

[booley]

31. Elizabeth Warren

Frankly Sander's "crankiness" is the media portrayal of his.. caring about stuff. His earnest and he will call people out if he sees them acting badly.

I can think of a female candidate that has done that.

Elizabeth Warren.

She doesn't call out people as consistently as Sanders but if anything that has actually hurt her.

And let's be clear. When the media calls Sanders "Cranky" that's an attack. They are trying to downplay his criticisms. Whether it helps with his supporters is beside the point.

And the fact that she "started off" strong doesn't mean much

Actually, in this case, it means a lot.

Harris was always a black woman. (Can't believe I need to point this out but ok..)

So anyone who would have been turned off by that fact would have done so from the start.

Its not as if people who had supported her before suddenly went "Oh wait I forgot Im a bigot!"

IF anything I think Harris being wishy washy hurt her. She wanted to be seen as Progressive but wouldn't commit to it.

[StarfishSaver]

32. Your post is so revealing of a certain attitude

Among other things, for you to equate Elizabeth Warren's demeanor and tone with Sanders' as similarly "cranky" but Warren gets away with it while Sanders is being "attacked" for it is actually astounding, but very telling - it certainly explains much of the rest of your post.

It's really sad to see progressives so blind and dismissive about racism. It's hard enough to deal with outright racists without having to also deal with the soft bigotry of our allies who believe they are beyond reproach, have nothing to learn and no room for improvement on this topic.

Sad for those of us on the receiving end, but even sadder for those who are so deluded in their own self-righteousness.

[demigoddess]

27. misogyny rules. who is surprised???

[Joe941]

33. Qualified yes, but likable and electable is questionable.

[guillaumeb]

34. The terms likable and electable are so vague.

And often it is the media, and the way it frames the coverage, that determines who is likable.

[treestar]

35. It may not matter because the Dotard

won, and he is unlikeable.

So it's not always a thing.

[guillaumeb]

36. It is generally applied to women.

And yes, Trump has no likable qualities at all.