> Also, the narrative that Hillary Clinton somehow failed spectacularly is a retrofiction
No, its not. Trump was, on most indicators of strength prior to the election, either the weakest or second weakest general election candidate in the history of the kind of indicators from which you could judge this, with Clinton as his only close competition (Trump’s negatives across the electoratrs were higher, but Clinton’s were nearly as high and by all indications firmer). Losing to Trump was, itself, a monumental underperformance.
> She got millions more votes than Trump, it just didn't actually matter because she didn't campaign well enough in the correct states.
Yes, well, getting the right votes are part of campaign performance. Yes, it sucks that the US has a bad and undemocratic system of Presidential elections, but that’s a known part of the system that campaigns address from day one.
(That said, concluding from Hillary’s performance as a uniquely bad general election candidate for reasons that were apparent long before the election that have nothing to do with her gender that there is a general weakness of women as candidates, as suggested upthread, would be a mistake.)
I think Republicans are eventually going to have to be popular (ie. win the popular vote) to have an effective president. Just skimming by on electoral votes makes for ineffective executives.
I've concluded that women are weak candidates for president based on the fact that no woman has ever won the presidency in over two centuries.
And I really don't think Trump is all that weak a candidate. He might have faced a bit of reluctance in 2016, but didn't he get the 2nd most votes of any presidential candidate ever in 2020? 1st ever being Biden? And now he's cruising to presumably his third major party nomination. He might not be exactly conventionally popular, but I would not call whatever he is weak.
> I've concluded that women are weak candidates for president based on the fact that no woman has ever won the presidency in over two centuries.
Concluding that weak general election candidates on that basis would be making the same mistake, with a different time window, as Clinton boosters: mistaking strength in the nomination process with strength in the general election process. As general election candidates, well, there's little data, and, as alreayd explained, it’s easily explaibed by non-gender factors.
And, assessing nominating contest strength in the basis of the whole history of the US ignores that women didn’t generally have the vote for more than a century of that time, that the nominating contest was overtly controlled by party elites from shortly after the emergence of parties until 1972, and both parties even when shifting to primaries as the predominant nonination tool stacked the system to favor party elites in different ways.
> And I really don't think Trump is all that weak a candidate.
He was, as a general election candidate, in 2016, but Clinton was similar (and, in the end, worse as a candidate.)
And in 2020, he lost with the advantages of incumbency, so, there’s that.
> didn't he get the 2nd most votes of any presidential candidate ever in 2020?
Almost like there was a widespread state-level election policy change in 2020 that boosted turnout.
> And now he's cruising to presumably his third major party nomination.
Nominating contest strengths are, again, a different thing than general election strength, and imagined nominating contest strength several months before the first primary is still a different thing yet.
And that’s even for candidates who haven’t been indicted with further court process in the case to occur before the first primary, and facing multiple other active criminal investigations.
> women didn’t generally have the vote for more than a century of that time,
Yes, I consider that a significant weakness.
You keep differentiating between the primaries and general, but to quote you above "Yes, well, getting the right votes are part of campaign performance." In the US, part of being a strong candidate means not only winning the Electoral College, but also winning a major party primary prior to that. That is the system.
And yes, I do not have future sight, so I cannot tell you for sure that Trump will be the nominee, but I see no evidence that he's particularly weak in this primary, indictment or no. He's polling well in the lead and I think is up to 10 Senate endorsements and 50-odd house endorsements for whatever those are worth.
How can a cobdition which no longer exists be a current weakness in anything except your attempt to generalize from it to current reality?
> In the US, part of being a strong candidate means not only winning the Electoral College, but also winning a major party primary prior to that.
Obviously, winning a nominating contest is part of being a successful candidate, and there are contexts where that is relevant, and being a strog general election candidate is a subset of that.
However, when the context is general election strength, no, ability to win preceding nominating contests is immaterial.
> How can a cobdition which no longer exists be a current weakness in anything except your attempt to generalize from it to current reality?
Let's say that's my way of saying that I think that the misogyny that gave rise to those policies might not be completely gone from the country.
> However, when the context is general election strength, no, ability to win preceding nominating contests is immaterial.
I have to disagree. As far as I know, there is no rule that says that you have to win any kind of primary to run in the general election (I'm told getting onto all state ballots is quite a feat though). And also as far as I know, no one has ever won without the backing of one of the major parties. To be fair, I suppose my thinking isn't so much that any of them are just great candidates, it's more that they suck the least out of any of the options. Perhaps we just don't have any really good candidates any more.
No, its not. Trump was, on most indicators of strength prior to the election, either the weakest or second weakest general election candidate in the history of the kind of indicators from which you could judge this, with Clinton as his only close competition (Trump’s negatives across the electoratrs were higher, but Clinton’s were nearly as high and by all indications firmer). Losing to Trump was, itself, a monumental underperformance.
> She got millions more votes than Trump, it just didn't actually matter because she didn't campaign well enough in the correct states.
Yes, well, getting the right votes are part of campaign performance. Yes, it sucks that the US has a bad and undemocratic system of Presidential elections, but that’s a known part of the system that campaigns address from day one.
(That said, concluding from Hillary’s performance as a uniquely bad general election candidate for reasons that were apparent long before the election that have nothing to do with her gender that there is a general weakness of women as candidates, as suggested upthread, would be a mistake.)