Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-22-2017, 01:24 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Yet, the reality of why Clinton lost seems to have more to do with who didn't vote than who did. Trump got less votes than Romney did. Think about that for a second. That means that fewer people voted for him than voted for Romney...a guy who lost pretty handily to Obama. What that means is that a LOT fewer people voted for Clinton than voted for either Obama OR Romney in the previous election. Unless you think that a lot of your fellow lefties and minorities didn't vote because Clinton was a woman your position here doesn't seem to be backed up by the numbers. I mean, to me and in general, those who would be most opposed to a woman in office would be on the Republican and right wing side, not on the Democrat and left...and, basically, those votes aren't going to go Democrat no matter what.
I agree, leftist apathy played a big role in the outcome of the 2016 election. It will be very interesting to see what role it plays in the 2018 mid-terms. Maybe a wave?
  #52  
Old 08-22-2017, 01:27 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
It's possible, though hard to prove, that HRC lost the election because of misogyny. But even if she did, that is not proof that "The USA is not ready for a woman president". And considering that the election was so freakin' close pretty much proves that we are ready.
  #53  
Old 08-22-2017, 01:29 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow
Again, as I said to Quartz, I am not saying misogyny was the only reason Clinton lost the election. I happen to think Russian interference and stigmatizing Clinton's worst qualities also played a role, as did Comey's late-breaking announcement regarding her emails... and about a hundred other things. But as my first post pointed out, Clinton is not the only woman who endures it. Men in general are simply not subjected to the same kinds of criticisms to be the "right" candidate as women are. That's important to examine, and that's all I ask.
There are, simply put, far fewer woman (or black, or hispanic, or asian) candidates. THAT is certainly something that is a factor. However, my own state has a female governor and she is pretty well liked and won pretty easily...and this is in a mainly hispanic state where things like this still matter to at least some of the population. While I agree that you can say Clinton's loss had a non-zero part of it being because she was a woman, it simply wasn't, to me, enough to make any real difference. Since there have been very few female presidential candidates it's hard to say that they weren't elected because they were women, IMHO. The females you listed earlier, IMHO, would mainly not be electable at the Presidential level not because they are women but because they have other issues, mainly due to their politics. I mean, Bernie, loved by the left didn't get the nomination...was it because he is jewish? I don't think so, though it probably was a factor in the same way that Clinton's being a woman was a non-zero negative effect. But it wasn't the main reason, IMHO.
  #54  
Old 08-22-2017, 01:34 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
It's possible, though hard to prove, that HRC lost the election because of misogyny. But even if she did, that is not proof that "The USA is not ready for a woman president". And considering that the election was so freakin' close pretty much proves that we are ready.
I have never said misogyny is the only reason Clinton lost. I answered ThelmaLou's question, that the USA is not now ready for a woman President. I don't think we are.

Were the 2016 election as close as it was with a normal, qualified male candidate, then yours would be a powerful argument that we are ready with a better female candidate. But the very fact that so many Americans actually thought this was a contest is exactly what demonstrates how far we still are from that ideal.

Donald Trump is a dumpster fire. And she, as a highly qualified candidate, did not win.

You can ascribe that loss to a lot of things. And misogyny is one of them.
  #55  
Old 08-22-2017, 01:35 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
It's possible, though hard to prove, that HRC lost the election because of misogyny. But even if she did, that is not proof that "The USA is not ready for a woman president". And considering that the election was so freakin' close pretty much proves that we are ready.
But, I think this isn't the lesson or take away some are, um, well taking away. What I think a lot of Dems are thinking/seeing is that because they think The Donald is so obviously a boob and a horrible candidate, they should have won in a landslide, yet Clinton lost. Q.E.D. that means she lost because America doesn't want a female president. Plus, bonus...it means that, if a radical boob like Trump could win, then the progressive agenda is poised to finally get the break it needs at the national level! Now...let's get out there and attack the establishment and the moderates, we have a revolution to winz!!

  #56  
Old 08-22-2017, 01:51 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Now...let's get out there and attack the establishment and the moderates, we have a revolution to winz!!
No no no, that could work
  #57  
Old 08-22-2017, 02:16 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,890
I think this glass ceiling will be broken by way of the vice presidency. Once we have a woman as vice president, scandal-free, popular, it would be easier for (some) people to elect her to the presidency. Or she could get there via the death-of-the-CiC.

I think the Dems should definitely nominate a woman for veep in 2020, and I'm quite the cheerleader these days for Tammy Duckworth filling that spot. The top of the ticket could be any (charismatic, smart, experienced) guy-- so, yeah, I guess I sorta agree with the OP here. I think we need a guy in 2020; black, white, Jew, gentile, doesn't matter. But we need a dude.

Could a woman win? Sure. Do we want to take that chance against Trump in 2020? This is a guy who pulls no punches in 1) sexist behavior and 2) making his opponent look weak. We don't need Trump's female opponent being made to look weak because of her gender. There are too many people out there who would still have a hard enough time pulling the lever for a woman; that number goes up considerably when the POTUS makes her look weak because of her gender, and he is a despicable dishonorable man who would have no qualms about making any woman look weak, emotional and victimized. These vile behaviors didn't hurt him in 2016.

2020 isn't the year for a bold, landmark step for our nation. It's an election that we just need to send in someone who can go toe-to-toe with a rabid dirt monkey, fight like hell in a mud pile full of rusty nails, and win.

Although if Pence is somehow the incumbent in 2020, let me just say now to all of what I just wrote: Never mind.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 08-22-2017 at 02:17 PM.
  #58  
Old 08-22-2017, 02:26 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
There are, simply put, far fewer woman (or black, or hispanic, or asian) candidates. THAT is certainly something that is a factor. However, my own state has a female governor and she is pretty well liked and won pretty easily...and this is in a mainly hispanic state where things like this still matter to at least some of the population. While I agree that you can say Clinton's loss had a non-zero part of it being because she was a woman, it simply wasn't, to me, enough to make any real difference. Since there have been very few female presidential candidates it's hard to say that they weren't elected because they were women, IMHO. The females you listed earlier, IMHO, would mainly not be electable at the Presidential level not because they are women but because they have other issues, mainly due to their politics. I mean, Bernie, loved by the left didn't get the nomination...was it because he is jewish? I don't think so, though it probably was a factor in the same way that Clinton's being a woman was a non-zero negative effect. But it wasn't the main reason, IMHO.
There was ample evidence around the time of the Democratic primaries that Bernie didn't expect to win the nomination; that he was basically running to provide Hillary political cover to move further to the left. I don't think he expected to be as successful as he was. Bernie chose to press his advantage while he had it, but he did ultimately move behind Hillary and strongly urged his supporters to get behind her, too.

I love Bernie, but I didn't support him in the primary. It had nothing to do with his religion. It had to do with that he is too progressive to ever be elected. You doubt this, I suspect, but understand he was not the one tested in the general election.

Had Bernie won the primary, the Republican playbook had lots of nasty goodies in store for him: His "honeymoon" in Russia (ironic, no?), that he thinks "rape is fine," that Sanders thought Sandinistas in Nicaragua were "patriotic." Think I'm kidding? Republican Playbook In Store for Sanders

Remember too, that more Democrats crossed over to vote for Trump than for Hillary.

It's easy to think Bernie could have won -- until you realize he was never tested in the general and didn't face down his own 30 years' worth of "baggage." Republicans are never shy to use it.

Also consider this: In 2015, 50% of people polled by Gallup said they would not vote for a socialist. Do you think Republicans would have been shy to paint Bernie as a socialist? Given that he describes himself that way, I think it's a safe assumption they'd have been all over that like a dog on a pork chop.

Interestingly, in that same poll, 8% said they would never vote for a woman. Period.

Least Appealing Candidates According to Gallup in 2015

So to be clear, Bernie was loved by the most progressive faction of the left, and pretty much not acceptable to anyone else. He would have gotten crushed in 2016.

But LOL, at least misogyny wouldn't have been one of his obstacles!
  #59  
Old 08-22-2017, 02:27 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I think this glass ceiling will be broken by way of the vice presidency. Once we have a woman as vice president, scandal-free, popular, it would be easier for (some) people to elect her to the presidency. Or she could get there via the death-of-the-CiC.

I think the Dems should definitely nominate a woman for veep in 2020, and I'm quite the cheerleader these days for Tammy Duckworth filling that spot. The top of the ticket could be any (charismatic, smart, experienced) guy-- so, yeah, I guess I sorta agree with the OP here. I think we need a guy in 2020; black, white, Jew, gentile, doesn't matter. But we need a dude.

Could a woman win? Sure. Do we want to take that chance against Trump in 2020? This is a guy who pulls no punches in 1) sexist behavior and 2) making his opponent look weak. We don't need Trump's female opponent being made to look weak because of her gender. There are too many people out there who would still have a hard enough time pulling the lever for a woman; that number goes up considerably when the POTUS makes her look weak because of her gender, and he is a despicable dishonorable man who would have no qualms about making any woman look weak, emotional and victimized. These vile behaviors didn't hurt him in 2016.

2020 isn't the year for a bold, landmark step for our nation. It's an election that we just need to send in someone who can go toe-to-toe with a rabid dirt monkey, fight like hell in a mud pile full of rusty nails, and win.

Although if Pence is somehow the incumbent in 2020, let me just say now to all of what I just wrote: Never mind.
Agree in all aspects of what you wrote. And yes, Tammy Duckworth would be a great Veep.
  #60  
Old 08-22-2017, 02:27 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I have never said misogyny is the only reason Clinton lost. I answered ThelmaLou's question, that the USA is not now ready for a woman President. I don't think we are.

Were the 2016 election as close as it was with a normal, qualified male candidate, then yours would be a powerful argument that we are ready with a better female candidate. But the very fact that so many Americans actually thought this was a contest is exactly what demonstrates how far we still are from that ideal.

Donald Trump is a dumpster fire. And she, as a highly qualified candidate, did not win.

You can ascribe that loss to a lot of things. And misogyny is one of them.
Trump beat all the men in the GOP primary, all of whom were better qualified than he was. So the fact that he beat a horrible woman candidate in the general election does not mean that misogyny was a factor in his victory. In 2007 ABC did a poll and they found that 10% of people were less likely to vote for Hillary because she is a woman and 15% were more likely. In 2016 10% said it made them less likely and 20% said more likely. Given those numbers it is likely that her gender was a net positive.
  #61  
Old 08-22-2017, 02:32 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Trump beat all the men in the GOP primary, all of whom were better qualified than he was.
Well, let's not forget Ben Carson.
  #62  
Old 08-22-2017, 02:52 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow
Remember too, that more Democrats crossed over to vote for Trump than for Hillary.
But they only made a difference because so many Democrats didn't vote. Comes back to those numbers again...Trump got fewer votes than Romney. Thousands of dissatisfied Dems did, indeed vote for Trump instead of Hillary...but millions of Dem voters didn't vote at all. And that made the key difference.

In addition, I seriously doubt that many of the Dems who voted for Trump instead of Hillary did so because she was a woman...it was more a backlash of blue collar populism, coal miners and other rust belt types who felt and still feel like the Dems have forgotten them and taken them for granted. I think those same cross overs would have happened to any Dem in this election...but it would have been background noise had the majority of Democrats who voted for Obama just bothered to go to the voting booths in this election.

As you can probably tell, it's a bit of a sore point with me.
  #63  
Old 08-22-2017, 02:56 PM
Patx2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 3,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
In 2010, Pew Research asked people to name the Chief Justice of the United States.

53% did not know. 8% said it was Thurgood Marshall and 4% said it was Harry Reid.

My own off-the-top-of-my-head response: Condi Rice, Susana Martinez, Nikki Haley. Condi's too smart to do it, of course.
Excellent list, and unfortunately, I agree with you about Condi Rice.
  #64  
Old 08-22-2017, 03:07 PM
gonzoron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,227
Tammy Duckworth was who I thought of too, but unfortunately she was born in Thailand, according to Wikipedia. Doesn't that rule her out? Even if there's some technicality for being the child of an active military officer, the birthers would come back out in force, I'd imagine.
  #65  
Old 08-22-2017, 03:15 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzoron View Post
Tammy Duckworth was who I thought of too, but unfortunately she was born in Thailand, according to Wikipedia. Doesn't that rule her out?
No. John McCain was born in Panama. Her dad was a US citizen, and she is, too.

Quote:
Even if there's some technicality for being the child of an active military officer, the birthers would come back out in force, I'd imagine.
Military office isn't important. Her dad was a US citizen. The birthers went after Obama, and he won.
  #66  
Old 08-22-2017, 03:33 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
There's little point in arguing whether Hillary's gender is why she lost the election - it was the reason. As were the emails. As was Bernie's existence. As was her lack of charisma. Seriously, the vote was so close that anything that any negative impact on her at all could be called "the reason", because removing any single factor's influence would be enough to have tipped her over to victory.
  #67  
Old 08-22-2017, 04:30 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
IMHO it's very important that Donald Trump not be reelected in 2020, given that he's still in office by then and runs again. But if the Democrats nominate another woman (Elizabeth Warren's name pops up) I believe they will be throwing the election away. Likewise a non-white man-- no matter how qualified.

This comes under the heading of Sad But True: only a white man can defeat Donald Trump.

As bad a Presidential candidate as Hillary may have been (even though she was widely described as possibly THE single most qualified candidate ever to run for President),
She was indeed described that way, by her supporters. It wasn't true, though. She was not the "most qualified person ever to run for President" by any logical measure I can imagine.

Nor is there evidence that the extent of a person's qualifications is what causes them to win. Barack Obama was objectively far less qualified to be President than John McCain, but he won. George W. Bush was less qualified (I'm just going by experience in government positions here) than Al Gore, but Bush won. Bill Clinton was obviously not as qualified as George H.W. Bush, but Clinton won. Ronald Reagan was not anywhere near as qualified as Jimmy Carter, but he won. Honestly, it's been a REALLY long time since a new candidate, someone not already President, won an election in which they were the more qualified candidate.
  #68  
Old 08-22-2017, 04:31 PM
gonzoron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
No. John McCain was born in Panama. Her dad was a US citizen, and she is, too.
Ignorance fought. Thank you.
  #69  
Old 08-22-2017, 04:52 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I think this glass ceiling will be broken by way of the vice presidency. Once we have a woman as vice president, scandal-free, popular, it would be easier for (some) people to elect her to the presidency. Or she could get there via the death-of-the-CiC.

I think the Dems should definitely nominate a woman for veep in 2020, and I'm quite the cheerleader these days for Tammy Duckworth filling that spot. The top of the ticket could be any (charismatic, smart, experienced) guy-- so, yeah, I guess I sorta agree with the OP here. I think we need a guy in 2020; black, white, Jew, gentile, doesn't matter. But we need a dude.

Could a woman win? Sure. Do we want to take that chance against Trump in 2020? This is a guy who pulls no punches in 1) sexist behavior and 2) making his opponent look weak. We don't need Trump's female opponent being made to look weak because of her gender. There are too many people out there who would still have a hard enough time pulling the lever for a woman; that number goes up considerably when the POTUS makes her look weak because of her gender, and he is a despicable dishonorable man who would have no qualms about making any woman look weak, emotional and victimized. These vile behaviors didn't hurt him in 2016.

2020 isn't the year for a bold, landmark step for our nation. It's an election that we just need to send in someone who can go toe-to-toe with a rabid dirt monkey, fight like hell in a mud pile full of rusty nails, and win.

Although if Pence is somehow the incumbent in 2020, let me just say now to all of what I just wrote: Never mind.
If a woman becomes president by virtue of the death of the POTUS and the female VP therefore becoming president, there will be detractors who will claim that the glass ceiling wasn't really broken decisively; the female POTUS happened by being sneaked in. Even if that female VP --> POTUS later goes on to win reelection.
  #70  
Old 08-22-2017, 04:54 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,189
HRC lost white women to Trump 43% to 53%. She just did not connect with people. Even Obama did better with white women. A different woman of the democratic persuasion could turn those numbers around and win the White House. It's true a woman candidate has to be nearly flawless; a female, Trump-like buffoon could never get elected. It will happen, but the next democratic nominee won't be a woman. Perhaps in 2024 or 2028. Kamala Harris might have a shot.
  #71  
Old 08-22-2017, 04:54 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
As for Duckworth, she may run into a Democratic version of John McCain Syndrome; namely, trying to sell herself too hard on the Purple Heart angle, the basis of military service and combat-sustained injury. Even if she does in fact have more substance to offer than that.
  #72  
Old 08-22-2017, 05:07 PM
treis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Trump got less votes than Romney did.
This isn't true:

Trump 2016 - 63 mil
Romney 2012 - 60.7 mil

http://www.cnn.com/election/results
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main/

People looked at incomplete initial results and compared them to Romney's final total. After everything was counted, Trump easily surpassed Romney's count.
  #73  
Old 08-22-2017, 05:23 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
HRC lost white women to Trump 43% to 53%. She just did not connect with people. Even Obama did better with white women.
Well, we're talking about politics here. I don't know what brought that up!!
  #74  
Old 08-22-2017, 05:42 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
I think if Sarah Palin had run for national office, like senator or congress maybe, she would have been an excellent choice in 2016 for the republican nomination.
  #75  
Old 08-22-2017, 05:49 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
HRC lost white women to Trump 43% to 53%. She just did not connect with people. Even Obama did better with white women. A different woman of the democratic persuasion could turn those numbers around and win the White House. It's true a woman candidate has to be nearly flawless; a female, Trump-like buffoon could never get elected. It will happen, but the next democratic nominee won't be a woman. Perhaps in 2024 or 2028. Kamala Harris might have a shot.
I think many democrats were pissed with the DNC saying with Hillary "shut up and vote for her" and not giving them any other choice. It's not like she was an incumbent or something yet she was treated as such.

The republicans had 15 candidates in this while the democrats had just one. See any problem with that?
  #76  
Old 08-22-2017, 05:51 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I think if Sarah Palin had run for national office, like senator or congress maybe, she would have been an excellent choice in 2016 for the republican nomination.
Palin is an idiot. If you want the Republicans to lose, nominate her!

She's got the brains of Trump and none of the sordid fame. Well, not as much as Trump has.

Last edited by John Mace; 08-22-2017 at 05:52 PM.
  #77  
Old 08-22-2017, 05:56 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcWoman View Post
I'm inclined to agree that Clinton was just not the right female candidate. Too many people hated her. I also thought she was very abrasive even though she was more qualified than Trump.

The challenge with a woman candidate for president though, is that you need a strong woman in that position. And strong women too quickly get labelled "bitch". A tough man is called assertive but a tough woman is called aggressive. This is what we need to fix in our society. I think all the women dopers here know what I'm talking about. (Raise your hand if (you're a woman and) you've NEVER been called a bitch at work simply for holding your ground on some issue.)
I'm not a woman, but I agree with you. The bright side of this is that it's gradually changing. Misogyny may be lagging racism in being shamed and driven underground on the way to being eventually eliminated entirely, but it's going in that direction. If you look back at the culture of the 50s just half a century ago, women's success was largely judged on being good housewives and pleasing their husbands, the natural breadwinners. This was widely reflected in the advertising and entertainment culture of the day; there were few career paths for women other than a traditional few servile jobs that were seen as stopgaps for young ladies prior to marriage. Today we have women in powerful executive positions and misogyny is on the wane, though still very much with us. We are also more than half a century past the point that it was considered remarkable that a Roman Catholic could get elected president.

So yes, a woman will be present at some point in the not greatly distant future, though I'm sure not prepared to say when. Racism still reared its ugly head throughout Obama's presidency, so while the times they are a'changin', they still have a ways to go.
  #78  
Old 08-22-2017, 05:56 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Palin is an idiot. If you want the Republicans to lose, nominate her!
On the other hand, Trump is an idiot, and he won. So it's not like idiocy is really a problem for a republican nominee.

That said, I was valiantly resisting saying something similar - that I agreed that Palin would have been a great candidate, because she would have assured a Clinton victory. Because Palin wouldn't have been able to leverage any of the things that got Trump his victory: showmanship, outsiderism, racism, russian support. She'd have had gerrymandering and the republican slander machine (emails!) behind her, true, but it wouldn't have been enough to get out the vote beat Hillary.
  #79  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:03 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
On the other hand, Trump is an idiot, and he won. So it's not like idiocy is really a problem for a republican nominee.

That said, I was valiantly resisting saying something similar - that I agreed that Palin would have been a great candidate, because she would have assured a Clinton victory. Because Palin wouldn't have been able to leverage any of the things that got Trump his victory: showmanship, outsiderism, racism, russian support. She'd have had gerrymandering and the republican slander machine (emails!) behind her, true, but it wouldn't have been enough to get out the vote beat Hillary.
Gerrymandering doesn't do anything in a presidential race.
  #80  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:05 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I think many democrats were pissed with the DNC saying with Hillary "shut up and vote for her" and not giving them any other choice. It's not like she was an incumbent or something yet she was treated as such.

The republicans had 15 candidates in this while the democrats had just one. See any problem with that?
Well two, obviously.

The DNC favored Clinton, no doubt about it, but their clout isn't the primary reason for the lack of contenders. The Clinton fundraising machine scared them off.
  #81  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:09 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,318
Aaargh!! Obviously meant "president", not "present", in my last paragraph. As far as I know, women are already present among us today!
  #82  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:10 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Gerrymandering doesn't do anything in a presidential race.
I have a hard time keeping track of such things, so let's pretend I said "voter suppression" or whatever. In any case, Palin wouldn't have had a prayer.
  #83  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:11 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I think if Sarah Palin had run for national office, like senator or congress maybe, she would have been an excellent choice in 2016 for the republican nomination.
Are you fucking kidding me? The same Sarah Palin who quit being governor halfway through her term because she got bored and thought a media career would suit her better?

Sarah Palin would be an unmitigated electoral disaster on a scale not seen since 1984. Mondale at least won his home state of Minnnesota. Palin couldn't do that, she's reviled in Alaska.

The fact is, Hillary came within a whisker of winning the goddam election. Why did she lose? There are dozens of reasons she lost, and all are true like begbert2 said, because if any of those had gone the other way she would have been pushed over the top.

But the main reason she lost is that she didn't emulate Obama's work in 2008 and 2012 of focusing on getting over the hump in the critical states. She won the popular vote, big deal. And she lost by an incredibly slim margin in a couple of states that she thought were safe.

The idea that a woman needs to be perfect while a man can burp and scratch his balls and still win is silly. Yeah, she lost against Donald Trump. Anybody who loses against Donald Trump should hang their head in shame. Ted Cruz, born in Canada, I'm looking at you. Marco Rubio? Jeb? Kasich? And all the rest? Shame on you. You suck. You couldn't win against Donald Trump, so you suck. It isn't like the men were beating the crap out of Trump and then he went up against a woman and finally won because Americans don't trust women. Trump beat everyone.

But if you look at the polls, if Hillary had been up against Rubio or Jeb or any other of the mainstream Republican candidates, she probably would have lost even worse. Nominating Trump was seen as the Republicans throwing away a very winnable election. But Trump somehow pulled it off.

Good luck with that in 2020, because Trump is not going to be the Republican nominee in 2020. He's much more likely, if he survives impeachment in 2018, to declare victory and go home, because he's probably not going to be capable of even keeping the Republican nomination. In 2019 when he looks at the poll numbers, he's going to see humiliating defeat ahead. And if there's one thing Trump can't stand, it's looking like a loser.
  #84  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Gerrymandering doesn't do anything in a presidential race.
I'm amazed at how often this simple fact has to be reiterated here.
  #85  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:17 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
...She [HRC] won the popular vote, big deal...
"HRC" added for clarification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm amazed at how often this simple fact has to be reiterated here.
And that, too. Hilary did not win the popular vote. She got a plurality, not a majority.
  #86  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:23 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
In 2019 when he looks at the poll numbers, he's going to see humiliating defeat ahead. And if there's one thing Trump can't stand, it's looking like a loser.
In 2016 the poll numbers said he was headed for a humiliating defeat too, didn't they? I could dig up a (hilarious) Rachel Maddow video on the subject, if you don't recall.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-22-2017 at 06:23 PM.
  #87  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:37 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
In 2016 the poll numbers said he was headed for a humiliating defeat too, didn't they? I could dig up a (hilarious) Rachel Maddow video on the subject, if you don't recall.
I'm not so sure that's really accurate, since poll numbers as I recall were changing very quickly, though I do recall Nate Silver quite consistently giving him a strong chance.

But how's he doing on running the most successful presidency in the history of the universe? Is anyone complaining yet about being tired of winning, because there's just so much winning going on, as promised? Mostly I note that more top officials have quit or been fired than in any other administration I know of, while nothing at all gets done and his popularity sinks to record lows. If this bodes well for a Republican renomination, the party is in even worse shape than I thought.
  #88  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:41 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
In 2016 the poll numbers said he was headed for a humiliating defeat too, didn't they?
No, they did not. Not to anyone who was paying attention.

At no point did the polls ever call for a lopsided election.
  #89  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:41 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I'm not so sure that's really accurate, since poll numbers as I recall were changing very quickly, though I do recall Nate Silver quite consistently giving him a strong chance.
There was a significant amount of time, including most of Oct 2016 when 538 gave him < 25% chance of winning.
  #90  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:46 PM
don't mind me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 1,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcWoman View Post
I also thought she was very abrasive even though she was more qualified than Trump.
...

[Y]ou need a strong woman in that position. And strong women too quickly get labelled "bitch". A tough man is called assertive but a tough woman is called aggressive.
You labelled the more qualified candidate "too abrasive" in a race against Donald Trump (although I do understand that you were not comparing them). Your example - which I think would be applied to any woman candidate - demonstrates both your second point and the OP.

I'm also pinning my hopes on Tammy Duckworth with a prior term or two as VP. Even though it could be as long as ten years away, she would still be a young 59 when she ran.

Last edited by don't mind me; 08-22-2017 at 06:47 PM.
  #91  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:50 PM
don't mind me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 1,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Gerrymandering doesn't do anything in a presidential race.
It does serve to reduce the field of qualified, experienced Democratic candidates.
  #92  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:55 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
In 2016 the poll numbers said he was headed for a humiliating defeat too, didn't they? I could dig up a (hilarious) Rachel Maddow video on the subject, if you don't recall.
Lightning striking once doesn't make lightning a non-rare occurrence.
  #93  
Old 08-22-2017, 07:06 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Nope, not saying that. Saying that he was so ill-qualified for the job against someone who was, that the explanation for his election bears scrutiny with respect to the role misogyny played in this last election.
You are dodging the question. You claimed that female candidates get called out on their temperament and appearance while male candidates get a pass on those.

It was pointed out that Trump has had his temperament and appearance mocked from day one continuing to the present.

You said that was because Trump was ill qualified.

It was asked if being ill-qualified should open a candidate up for insults about temperament and appearance.

You gave the above answer which simply restated your premise in the OP. I would like for you to support your position that male candidates are given a pass on appearance and temperament.
  #94  
Old 08-22-2017, 07:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
No, they did not. Not to anyone who was paying attention.

At no point did the polls ever call for a lopsided election.
At NO POINT?!? Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel Maddow on 8/15/2016
And if those are the toss-up states, if you do the math associated with all the electoral votes from all of the states, if they go that way, if they lean Republican and likely Democrat go red, and the lean Democrat and likely Democrat go blue, if you sign those out that way, and then you say that Donald Trump has the best day in the entire world and completely outperforms expectations and he wins all the toss-up states, he wins all five of those states plus that Electoral College vote in Maine that he`s after, he wins all of the toss-ups, which would be insane because nobody wins all the toss-up states, even if Donald Trump did win all the toss-up states, he would still lose. Hillary Clinton is that far ahead right now.
Was Rachel Maddow lying to her viewers? Was she not "paying attention"?
  #95  
Old 08-22-2017, 07:20 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Here is a link to the Rachel Maddow video I quoted above. You've really got to watch the video to fully appreciate her smugness.
  #96  
Old 08-22-2017, 07:48 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 30,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I'm not saying it was the only reason for her loss. I acknowledged she is a poor campaigner and I didn't agree with all her positions. I don't think that makes me "desparate" to find an excuse.
I'm sorry but that's the way it looks from here.

Quote:
What seems "desperate" to me is the number of people who, when confronted with the reality of the enormously unqualified person serving in the White House
A large number of you fellow Americans disagreed with you.
  #97  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:27 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 82,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Here is a link to the Rachel Maddow video I quoted above. You've really got to watch the video to fully appreciate her smugness.
Sorry, I get PTESD (Post-Traumatic-Election Stress Disorder) when I watch stuff like that now.
  #98  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:17 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
President Trump has been mocked incessantly for his appearance and temperament.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires
It was pointed out that Trump has had his temperament and appearance mocked from day one continuing to the present.
But President Trump is an outlier among male politicians in terms of both his appearance (e.g., his bizarre dyed combover, his obesity, his weird suits and ties) and his temperament (his long history of deliberately outrageous showboating, his thin-skinned tweetfits, his short-fused attention-seeking, his constant boasting and demands for adulation, etc.). And, as already noted, he doesn't have much in the way of other salient qualities as a politician to distract from his appearance and temperament, which is also quite unusual for high-ranking public figures.

I think the point of the argument here is that female politicians are much more likely than male ones to get picked on for appearance and temperament issues when they're not outliers in those areas.

In other words, as a male politician you have to be exceptionally ugly and/or outrageous/weird to get the same levels of superficial shallow criticism that ordinary-looking, articulate, competent female politicians typically receive.

Last edited by Kimstu; 08-23-2017 at 12:20 AM.
  #99  
Old 08-23-2017, 07:42 AM
JackieLikesVariety's Avatar
JackieLikesVariety is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,592
Quote:
as a male politician you have to be exceptionally ugly and/or outrageous/weird to get the same levels of superficial shallow criticism that ordinary-looking, articulate, competent female politicians typically receive.
QFT
  #100  
Old 08-23-2017, 09:46 AM
Modesty Blaise is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I have never said misogyny is the only reason Clinton lost. I answered ThelmaLou's question, that the USA is not now ready for a woman President. I don't think we are.

Were the 2016 election as close as it was with a normal, qualified male candidate, then yours would be a powerful argument that we are ready with a better female candidate. But the very fact that so many Americans actually thought this was a contest is exactly what demonstrates how far we still are from that ideal.

Donald Trump is a dumpster fire. And she, as a highly qualified candidate, did not win.

You can ascribe that loss to a lot of things. And misogyny is one of them.
Yes. The FACT that this stunningly unqualified MAN got as many votes as he did, to me, speaks VOLUMES.

I thought the Republican national convention was seriously disturbing and resembled and actual witch trial.

Another exercise: Switch Trump's name with Hillary on headlines. Example: Hillary walks out on stage with her five children from three husbands.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017