Thread by @ashtonpittman

In 2015, Pete tweeted that Hillary Clinton was unlikable. He thought other potential female candidates — like Elizabeth Warren — would be far more “likable.”

Now that Elizabeth Warren is running, does Pete still think she’s likable? Read the thread to find out!

Here is a later tweet in which Pete suggested a “likable” ticket of Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, instead of the “unlikable” Hillary Clinton.

It’s 2019, and just a day after Elizabeth Warren announced her plan to run for president, Pete was already expressing concern that Dems may repeat the mistakes of 2016 by running an “unlikable” candidate—even though he once suggested Warren as a “likable” alternative to Clinton.

Politico was also on top of the “unlikable” question the day after Elizabeth Warren announced, comparing her to Hillary Clinton and examining “perceptions of her as cold or aloof.”

The interesting thing about this, though, is that a common refrain during 2015 and 2016 was that Elizabeth Warren would be a far more “likable” woman for Democrats to run as a candidate for president than Hillary Clinton. I have receipts. Like this one.

During the 2016 primaries, Douglas questioned @joanwalsh’s assertion that “likability” is sexist code. “Elizabeth Warren is extremely ‘likable,’” he wrote.

Seth wrote that likability discussions had nothing to do with sexism, because he did not think Hillary Clinton was even “half as likable” as Elizabeth Warren.

Steve “really wanted a woman to be president,” but wished it was someone “likable” like Elizabeth Warren.

Nick could not understand why Hillary Clinton was running for president in 2016 instead of the “infinitely more likable” Elizabeth Warren.

Elizabeth Warren was among the “long list” of candidates who were “likable and female” that Daniel said he would prefer over Hillary Clinton.

Dave wrote that it had “nothing 2do w/gender,” and that a comparison of Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren would make it clear just how unlikable and inauthentic Clinton really was.

And Paul predicted Hillary Clinton would not pick Elizabeth Warren as VP because she would not want to pick “a female more likable than herself.”

A few notes:
1. No, I didn’t purposefully choose all men for the receipts. I didn’t realize it until I tweeted the last one.
2. I’m not saying you have to “like” Warren or HRC. But question why “likability” keeps popping up as an issue when women run. Examine your own motives.

3. I realize this anecdotal. These are just a few of thousands of such tweets from 2015-2016 when Elizabeth Warren was constantly invoked as a likable female alternative for Dems to Hillary Clinton. But there is social science research that backs the “likability” conundrum up. 👉🏻

Social science research repeatedly finds that in leadership, “women face distinct social penalties for doing the very things that lead to success,” as this 2013 Harvard Business Review on women leaders and “Likability and Success“ by @coopermarianne:

hbr.org/2013/04/for-wo…

As sociologist @coopermarianne wrote: “Women are expected to be nice, warm, friendly, & nurturing. Thus, if a woman acts assertively or competitively...if she exhibits decisive & forceful leadership, she is deviating from the social script that dictates how she ‘should’ behave.”

Research shows that “women negotiate for promotions and raises more often than men do, but they're far less likely to receive them. The issue is that, when women negotiate, people like them less for it.”

businessinsider.com/women-executiv…

Of 248 job performance reviews analyzed, "negative personality criticism - watch your tone! step back! stop being so judgmental! - shows up twice in the 83 critical reviews received by men. It shows up in 71 of the 94 critical reviews received by women."

fortune.com/2014/08/26/per…

“...successful women elicit pushback from others for being insufficiently feminine and too masculine. As descriptions like ‘Ice Queen,’ and ‘Ballbuster’ can attest, we are deeply uncomfortable with powerful women. In fact, we often don’t really like them.” -@coopermarianne

Hillary Clinton discussed the research on women and likability last year:

“The more a woman is in service for someone else (the more likable she is),” she said, noting her 69% approval as Sec. of State, working “in service to our country” & “president.”

https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/907986923335163904?s=21

Hillary Clinton on women asking for power: “But when a woman walks into the arena and says, ‘I’m going in this for myself,’ it really does have a dramatic effect on how people perceive.”

Each time Hillary Clinton asked for “promotions” to higher office, her approvals declined dramatically.

1999: 67% as FLOTUS fell to the 40s when she first ran for Senate.

2007: 58% fell to 45% in first POTUS run.

2015: 66% as Sec of State fell to 40s leading up to 2nd run.

While Hillary Clinton’s favorables tanked after she announced in 2007, the same didn’t happen for a well known male candidate. In fact, after John McCain’s campaign kicked into gear in 2007, his approval zoomed from the low 40s to 67%, despite his staunch pro-Iraq War position.

When Rudy Giuliani announced a run for president in 2007, his approval rose from 62% to 66%, & despite months of the GOP primary, held near 60%. America didn’t eye him with suspicion for seeking higher office. When she began runs, Hillary’s favs fell 13-17 pts in 2007 and 2015.

This second Pete tweet is a much *earlier tweet (from 2015), not a later one.