Wednesday, January 16, 2019 // The Statement 7B Wednesday, March 11, 2020 // The Statement 7B When will America be ready for her? BY ELI RALLO, STATEMENT COLUMNIST I n 2016, I voted for President of the United States for the first time. I remember walking to my poll- ing place in Ann Arbor, Michigan as a freshman in college, and waiting in line with a feeling of thrill in my chest. As I walked toward the booth I felt a bit of hesitance — almost as though I didn’t have the agency to cast my own vote, and thought back to the times my brothers and I would file in after my mother to watch her vote in the town hall in our hometown of Fair Haven, New Jersey. I thought back further to the women who fought for me to have this privilege today, how it wasn’t always given at the age of 18. I looked down at the ballot for the highest office in American politics, old enough to make my own vote, all alone, and had the privilege to see a woman’s name printed clearly on the ballot alongside then-nominee and current Republican President Donald Trump. In plain writing, there it was: history. Seeing a woman represented on a major political bal- lot shouldn’t have to feel surprising, exciting or exhaust- ing, but it does — it did. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who faced harassment and targeted gender attacks throughout her campaign, beat Trump in the national popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes, but ultimately lost the presidency by 77 votes in the Elec- toral College. Clinton had numerous qualifications for the presidency, such as her Senate seat, position as U.S. Secretary of State and her work as First Lady, but in the aftermath of the election, many argued that despite her popular vote win, America wasn’t ready for Hillary — or any female president. Perhaps it seems like a no-brainer that most women gravitated toward Hillary Clinton as their choice in 2016, but this was not the case. According to an Edison Nation- al Election Poll run in 2016, just over 50 percent of white women with a college degree voted for Clinton in 2016 — not really an overwhelming win. This is in large part due to white women, as 61 percent of non-college educated white women and 44 percent of college-educated white women voted for Trump. Among women of color, only 3 percent of non-college educated African American women and 25 percent of non-college educated Hispanic women voted for him. 77 percent of nonwhite percent of college-educated women of color voted for Hillary Clinton — much more than col- lege-educated white women. The support for Trump from white women has been analyzed as arising from the white woman’s his- toric loyalty to the right, their privilege in being able to support a male, Republican president, and the power their whiteness has. Moreover, and among women and men alike, there was the underlying anxiety of trusting a woman in power, regardless of her qualifications. For some women, electing a female president is secondary to winning the election — beating Trump comes first. Oth- ers simply cannot see a woman in such a high position of power. In 2016, studies showed that Clinton’s gender had a huge impact on her loss, with people going so far as to say “she doesn’t have a presidential look.” Structural gender bias and the Clinton campaign’s steady uphill battle against gender discrimination and sexism made it ridiculously difficult for a victorious elec- tion. By way of analyzing slogans like “Trump that Bitch,” the criticism Hillary faced for not smiling (or smiling too much) and a fear of the subordination of Trump by a woman, it is clear that Hillary’s gender was used against her throughout the 2016 election, and Trump’s was not. This led to a stark double standard. Clinton was berated for matters that Trump was not: While people criticized Clinton’s use of private emails, they barely questioned Trump’s involvement in utilizing a private email for work himself. The bias deficit made it immensely more difficult for Hillary, or any woman, to be elected over a straight man. Despite all the possibilities to Clinton’s 2016 loss, there befalls a valid and important question, arguably the most telling one: Would those who voted for Donald Trump have been more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton if she were a man? Following the election, there was a deflated feeling among Clinton’s supporters and those who hoped for the first female president to dismantle the historical norm and superior electability of male presidents. Despite the hope for many that a woman would make her way into the White House in 2020, All in Together’s 2019 poll found that both Democratic and Republican voters predicted a male Democratic nominee — not a female one — would win against Trump in 2020. They saw hope in the pros- pect of a male Democratic candidate and feared another apparent expected loss by a Democratic woman. Now, with Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, as the last woman in the race and polling extremely low, it’s apparent the next President will indeed be a man. As America readjusted in the weeks after Trump’s election and subsequent inauguration, I wondered when Americans would vote a woman into office — with both a popular vote and overwhelming support of the Electoral College — if Hillary Clinton, a woman with accolades and throngs of experience, who many thought was a shoo-in, didn’t beat Donald Trump. I wondered if the fact that Hillary Clinton almost reached the Oval Office would ignite a fire in Americans to truly strive for a female presidency, or introduce a lackadaisical attitude about promoting a female president, coming off of the sting of Clinton’s loss. Despite the fact that the Democratic Party saw many women campaign throughout the 2020 Democratic pri- mary election cycle, they also saw these women slowly drop out, due to lack of support or exhaustion of expenses. With the stakes high for the Democratic Party to defeat Trump in 2020, the mainstream conversation in the media has become less about breaking the White House’s glass ceiling, and more about getting a Democrat — any Democrat — in the Oval Office. The priority for Demo- crats is turning the White House blue again, and both Democrats and Republicans alike have commented they don’t think a woman is the person for the job. *** As Americans watched all six women face defeat, they have begun to analyze how these politicians’ shared identity as American women affected their likeability and campaign success during the primaries. I wondered how college-aged, left-leaning women con- sider their gender identity when selecting a candidate to vote for. And more specifically, how the candidate’s poli- cies on women’s issues affect how young women voters consider them as viable options when voting. In the weeks prior to Super Tuesday, I spent time interviewing college-aged, left-leaning women from the University of Michigan. What I found, in talking to them, is that the rhetoric of candidates and their stances surrounding women and minorities is overwhelmingly important when selecting a politician to vote for — issues like a woman’s agency over her body, equal pay and foundational human rights. Voting, for these women, is extremely subjective based on their needs and preferenc- es, yet all of them had astute opinions on Warren — the strongest female contender — her struggle for the nomi- nation, and how her gender stood in her way. Theatre & Dance junior Emerson Smith voted for Ber- nie Sanders on March 10, and leans strongly on policy when making a decision about who to vote for. I asked her what communities she identifies with within society, and how these groups affect her voting choices. ILLUSTRATION BY DORY TUNG Read more at MichiganDaily.com