Unpacking the 2016 Election: Chelsea Handler’s Candid Critique of Women’s Political Support and the Gender Divide

The morning of November 9, 2016, dawned with a profound sense of shock and disillusionment for many across the United States, particularly for countless women. The unexpected victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the presidential race left a significant portion of the electorate reeling. While images of women in tears became a poignant symbol of the collective despair for Hillary Clinton’s supporters, it was also undeniably true that a substantial number of American women celebrated Trump’s triumph. This stark division among female voters became a central point of discussion and introspection, prompting figures like comedian and activist Chelsea Handler to voice a candid, and at times controversial, critique of women’s voting patterns.

The 2016 election was widely anticipated by many to be a landmark moment in American history, specifically for women. With Hillary Clinton as a major party nominee, the expectation was that the ultimate glass ceiling would finally be shattered. Her campaign, backed by decades of public service and political experience, aimed to inspire women nationwide to elect the first female president. Yet, the outcome defied these projections, leaving many to grapple with the question: what happened?

Chelsea Handler on ‘The Daily Show’: A Raw Post-Election Reflection

During her December 1 appearance on ‘The Daily Show’ with Trevor Noah, Chelsea Handler did not mince words regarding her profound disappointment and, more significantly, her assessment of why Hillary Clinton lost. Handler articulated a sentiment shared by many Clinton supporters, describing her post-election morning as one of the “worst feelings” she’d ever experienced, surpassing even painful romantic breakups in its intensity and despair. This raw emotional honesty resonated with many women who found themselves grappling with similar feelings of grief and confusion following the election results.

Handler’s conversation with Trevor Noah quickly moved beyond personal lament, evolving into a pointed critique aimed at her own gender. She squarely placed a significant portion of the blame for Clinton’s defeat on women who, she argued, failed to coalesce behind a highly qualified female candidate. Her argument stemmed from the often-heard refrain during the campaign: “I just don’t like Hillary.”

The “Likability” Conundrum: When Personal Preference Overshadows Policy and Experience

Chelsea Handler highlighted a phenomenon that continues to plague female candidates in politics: the disproportionate emphasis on “likability.” She recounted how numerous women expressed a personal dislike for Hillary Clinton, often without being able to articulate a substantive, policy-based reason for their sentiment. This observation struck a chord, suggesting that for many female voters, emotional or superficial considerations superseded a candidate’s qualifications, policy positions, or long-standing record of public service.

“I understand if you don’t ‘like’ Hillary. I get that,” Handler conceded to Trevor Noah, acknowledging the prevalence of this sentiment. However, she quickly pivoted to a more critical perspective: “Forget about whether you like her (Hillary) or not — look at what she’s done for women and children.” Handler implored women to move beyond personal feelings and recognize the profound impact Clinton’s work could have had. She argued that supporting a candidate with a proven track record of fighting for women’s and children’s rights, regardless of personal affinity, was a moral and strategic imperative, especially when contrasted with a candidate like Donald Trump, whom she characterized as “not a real person” who “takes advantage of everyone around him.”

The weight placed on “likability” for female candidates often feels like a double standard. Male politicians are rarely subjected to the same level of scrutiny regarding their personal charm or perceived warmth; their competence and strength are frequently prioritized. For women, however, a perceived lack of warmth or an assertive demeanor can become a significant political liability, potentially overshadowing years of dedicated service and substantive policy proposals. Handler’s comments served as a powerful call to introspection for women voters: were they holding Hillary Clinton to an unfair standard, one that ultimately undermined their collective progress?

The Surprising Statistic: College-Educated Women and the Trump Vote

Perhaps one of the most perplexing statistics to emerge from the 2016 election was that 53 percent of college-educated white women voted for Donald Trump. This figure particularly baffled many commentators and pollsters, who had widely predicted that this demographic would be the least likely to support a candidate whose campaign was characterized by rhetoric often perceived as misogynistic. Trump’s history of demeaning comments about women – referring to them as “dogs,” “slobs,” “bimbos,” and “pigs,” not to mention the infamous “pussy grabbing” tape – seemed, to many, antithetical to the values typically associated with educated women.

This demographic’s voting pattern challenged conventional wisdom and underscored the complexity of voter behavior. It suggested that factors beyond overt sexism and a candidate’s perceived respect for women played a crucial role. These could include economic concerns, anti-establishment sentiment, social conservatism, or even the influence of spouses and community networks. Chelsea Handler touched upon this, somewhat flippantly suggesting that some women might have been “listening too much to their husbands,” an observation that, while controversial, points to the various influences that can shape an individual’s vote, even in the face of deeply personal issues like gender equality.

Beyond “Listening to Husbands”: The Deeper Roots of Division Among Women

While acknowledging external influences, Handler ultimately placed the primary responsibility on women themselves. Her argument was not about blindly supporting a woman simply because she is a woman. Rather, it was about supporting “the woman in play [who] is the most qualified in years and has dedicated their life to women and children.” For Handler, failing to rally behind such a candidate indicated a deeper societal issue: “there’s something wrong with you, if you don’t think it’s time to shatter this, so in 20 years you can get in the f**king woman you like.”

This sentiment points to a critical and often uncomfortable truth about gender dynamics, especially in professional and political spheres. The idea that “women are often uncomfortable helping or supporting other women” is a phenomenon frequently discussed but rarely confronted head-on in public discourse. Unlike the well-documented “boys’ club” networks that often facilitate career advancement and mutual support among men, a comparable “girls’ club” tradition is often perceived as lacking or less effective. This absence can manifest in various ways, from subtle biases in the workplace to outright political opposition.

The “Girls’ Club” Phenomenon: Competition, Judgment, and Internalized Misogyny

The author of the original article profoundly resonated with Handler’s point, identifying a “not unknown phenomenon” where women can be hesitant to uplift other women. This reluctance can stem from a variety of complex factors, including:

• Competition vs. Camaraderie: In environments where women are still underrepresented, the pressure to prove oneself can foster a sense of competition rather than camaraderie. Instead of seeing other successful women as allies, some may view them as rivals for limited opportunities, leading to an environment where support is scarce.
• Societal Conditioning: Traditional patriarchal structures have often pitted women against each other, encouraging comparison and judgment rather than collaboration. This historical context can contribute to internalized misogyny, where women unwittingly adopt and perpetuate sexist attitudes towards other women, holding them to higher or different standards than their male counterparts.
• Judgment on Superficials: The article notes that “we judge other women on their looks, what they wear, their relationships and their ‘aggressiveness’ at work.” This tendency to scrutinize women based on personal attributes, rather than solely on their professional merits, can detract from recognizing their capabilities and leadership potential. For a candidate like Hillary Clinton, who navigated decades in the public eye, these superficial judgments often overshadowed her extensive resume.
• Distrust of High Achievers: There can be an underlying discomfort with “super high-achieving women” like Hillary. While men who boast of “tremendous” business success, like Donald Trump, are often applauded for their confidence, highly accomplished women are sometimes perceived differently. They may be labeled as “bossy,” “overly ambitious,” or even “untrustworthy” if they assert their achievements too strongly. This double standard forces women to walk a delicate tightrope, balancing competence with perceived humility to avoid alienating voters or colleagues.

Hillary Clinton’s Record vs. Donald Trump’s Rhetoric: A Stark Contrast

Chelsea Handler and the original author underscored the profound irony of Hillary Clinton’s defeat, particularly among women. Clinton had dedicated her entire career to advocating for policies that directly benefited women and families. Her platform championed critical issues such as women’s reproductive rights, ensuring access to healthcare and choice; equal pay for equal work, addressing systemic gender-based wage gaps; and family leave time for childbirth and adoption, recognizing the challenges working parents face. These were not just talking points but deeply held convictions, reflecting a lifetime of advocacy.

In stark contrast, Donald Trump’s campaign and public statements offered little to no support for these crucial policies. His rhetoric often diminished women, and his policy positions were either silent on or openly opposed to many of the advancements Clinton championed. Despite this clear divergence in commitment to issues vital for women’s empowerment and well-being, a significant portion of the female electorate did not vote for Clinton. This reality underscored Handler’s point: “any women still have an issue with supporting other women,” even when that woman is an unequivocal champion of their rights.

A Call for Introspection and a Unified Female Front

Chelsea Handler’s appearance on ‘The Daily Show’ served as more than just a post-election debrief; it was a potent call to introspection for women everywhere. Her message was clear: if women cannot unite behind a candidate as uniquely qualified and dedicated to their collective advancement as Hillary Clinton, simply because of a vague “likability” issue, then there is a fundamental problem within female political engagement.

The 2016 election highlighted deep-seated societal dynamics that often hinder female solidarity and progress. It forced a critical examination of how women perceive and support one another, especially in competitive arenas like politics. The challenge, as articulated by Handler and echoed by many, is to move beyond superficial judgments and internalized biases, to recognize that collective progress often requires setting aside personal preferences for the greater good. Supporting a candidate not just because she is a woman, but because her policies and proven track record demonstrably advance the interests of women and families, becomes paramount.

As we look to future elections and the continued fight for gender equality, Chelsea Handler’s candid observations remain incredibly relevant. The question she implicitly poses to all women is, are we ready to truly shatter the glass ceiling, not just for one individual, but for all future generations of women who aspire to leadership? This requires a conscious effort to build a strong “girls’ club” of mutual support and solidarity, dismantling the barriers that prevent women from fully empowering each other in the political landscape and beyond. It is, perhaps, truly time for that to stop, HollywoodLifers, and for women to rally in support of policies and candidates who unequivocally advance their collective interests. Let us know your thoughts!