Can Hillary Clinton Count on Women This Time?

[ismnotwasm]

11. The article does (kind of) albeit indirectly that perception

While a new Fox News poll finds the 2016 presidential race is Clinton’s to lose—she leaves Vice President Joe Biden in the dust in a primary matchup and beats all other Republican contenders, albeit by a smaller margin—women voters are really a wild card. Many forget that Barack Obama’s presidential hopes went from long shot to real shot after an Iowa victory over Clinton that was due not only to young voters but also to women.

Of course women voters are not required to support a female candidate, but in Clinton’s case, if they don’t support her, and in strong numbers, she has a tougher path to victory. Risa Heller, a communications consultant who has worked with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), among other politicians, said Clinton winning the White House would be a “watershed moment for women.” Calling the “Girls” conversation “brilliant,” Heller said: “She as a female candidate for president should be able to captivate women. I think the idea behind what they are doing right now is allowing her to talk to all kinds of women. Theoretically, they should be her base.”

But asked whether women voters are harder on other women and that’s why certain female candidates, including failed New York City mayoral hopeful Christine Quinn, are unable to captivate women voters, Heller said women are held to different standards—by both men and women. “I think women facing female voters or male voters feel in a lot of ways they have more to prove,” she said. “I think that’s just the way the world works.”