Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:07 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
She lost because people who voted for Obama decided to stay home and keep their marbles and sulk because their boy Bernie didn't get the nomination.
Considering her biggest drop in voters compared to Obama was among African Americans, this doesn't seem to hold up. Bernie was not really stealing black votes from Hillary during the primary.

I think the loss can be entirely accounted for by her being a bad candidate that did worse in almost every category than Obama. The only place she did better was in California. She kicked Obama's ass in California.
  #102  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:16 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
... 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.
You said "much more likely". Is that based on some sort of a quantitative analysis or more of a gut-level feeling?
  #103  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:17 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
... The only place she did better was in California. She kicked Obama's ass in California.
Are Californians racists?
  #104  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:27 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Are Californians racists?
Well, there are relatively few blacks in CA compared to most states in the east (except the ones in the extreme north), so that might have something to do with it. But I think she campaigned here a lot more than Obama did, which was one of her big mistakes. You don't get any more electoral votes by winning CA by anything more than 51%.
  #105  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:33 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
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.

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, are not willing to examine even the possibility that misogyny played a role.
Your OP implies that sexism didn't merely play some role, I mean how the fuck can anyone argue that sexism didn't play any fucking role at all. Your OP implies that sexism was an insurmountable obstacle that even someone as awesome as Hillary could not overcome.

Mysogyny was not some insurmountable obstacle to the presidency. Not even fucking close. If Hillary wasn't such a horrible candidate she would have won. If her sex was such a liability then she was a TRULY horrible candidate because she spent a lot of time playing up her sex during the campaign.

You are basically saying that the male dominance built into our collective psyches is more powerful than the white supremacy built into our collective psyches.

Did misogyny play some role? Perhaps. But the misogynous effect is probably eclipsed by the "hillary is a shitty candidate" effect. And I think it is entirely hogwash to say that a woman is not electable in this country.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 08-23-2017 at 10:35 AM.
  #106  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:44 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
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.
It wasn't just the fundraising. There was also fear of political retribution.
  #107  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:45 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm amazed at how often this simple fact has to be reiterated here.
Well, not every state is winner take all.
  #108  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:50 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
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.
I think this aura of inevitability also hurt er. There were plenty of people who would have held their nose to vote for her and perhaps they figured they could just stay at home and let others do the distasteful work of electing the lesser of two evils because she was going to win anyway.
  #109  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:52 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Are Californians racists?
No, but she spent a shitload of time campaigning (AKA fundraising) there.
  #110  
Old 08-23-2017, 11:00 AM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,910
Disagree with the OP. If it's not clear by now, half of America will vote for anyone who promises cruelty against the other half of America. McCain's strategy in choosing a woman VP to peel off women was very astute IMO, and his only misstep was failing to vet Sarah Palin for the whackjob she was.

But... run the right candidate, press the right buttons, and we'll have a woman president so fast it will make your head spin. Keep your eye on Nikki Haley.
  #111  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:14 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
There was a significant amount of time, including most of Oct 2016 when 538 gave him < 25% chance of winning.
24% is a pretty good chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
At NO POINT?!? Really?
That's right. Never once did the polls had Clinton way ahead for a trouncing. There was NEVER a point that was true, not for one single day.

According to 538, the largest NATIONAL gap at any point in Clinton's favor was approximately eight points, which is not a very big gap as opposed to a genuine crushing, and after all represented a high water mark in August, with a lot of undecided voters, that should not have been taken as a likely margin in November.

Now, Rachel Maddow might have said otherwise. If she did, she was simply wrong. I do have to point out that your Maddow quote does not have her say Clinton would hand Trump, in your words, "a humiliating defeat." The most common projections had it around 330-208 Clinton or so, enjoying a popular vote margin of 3-6 percent, which is reasonably close by historical standards; most elections have been more lopsided than that. Maddow was saying Clinton was certain to win, not that she would win in a landslide. But even that claim was very stupid; Clinton was fairly considered a favourite but it was never a certainty. The possibility she would lose in precisely the manner she did lose was always a reasonably decent bet if you got the right odds.

Why Maddow chose to ignore reality, I don't know. You can see in the video she assumes Clinton will win North Carolina, a truly baffling thing to assume; the polling in North Carolina was neck and neck throughout the entire race and voter suppression is, as any political observer should know, as enthusiastically pursued in NC as it is anywhere. She has Ohio and Iowa as toss ups though they polled more strongly for Trump than NC did for Clinton, so why isn't NC a toss up? So I don't know, maybe her staff cherry picked polls. Missing MI, WI and PA are understandable - but GUARANTEEING they would go Clinton was dumb. They were never a sure thing, and as Silver and others pointed out, these sorts of things are correlated.

Throughout the entire process, with the likes of Maddow and Sam Wang saying it was in the bag, 538 and other folks were saying "it totally isn't, Trump has a chance," and the facts were on their side. Rachel Maddow's opinions are not facts.

Last edited by RickJay; 08-23-2017 at 12:17 PM.
  #112  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:17 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 RickJay View Post
24% is a pretty good chance.
But not a "strong chance", which is what I was responding to. Also, there was very little of that time that was 24%. Maybe a few days. Most of the time was below 20%.
  #113  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:34 PM
vtxrider is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 118
I am sure Hillary had other slogans.

But where Obama's main slogan seemed to be Hope and Change (a very positive view), every bumper sticker I saw said "I'm with Her" (using the H logo).

So her main message seemed to be "vote for me because I am a woman". The other main messages were "vote for me, I will keep doing the same things as Obama" and "Trump sucks, so vote for me".

None of those things are really winning strategies. And the continued air of "a bunch of dummies elected Trump, so now surely they will all wise up and vote for the non-Trump candidate" does not seem like a winnable strategy either.

What is the message?

Why do we not know a lot of the women politicians? Same reason as most do not know many of any of the politicians. It is incredibly tough to get name recognition and usually those that have it, have it for the wrong reasons. I had never heard of Rubio, or Cruz, or Kaisch prior to the primaries. I knew of Trump from the news and his show. And I knew of Jeb because he was the son and brother of previous presidents.

Honestly, I did not want any more "dynasties". Had Bush won the primaries, then no matter who won, we would be in for 4-8 years of a family that had already been president for a long time.

I had not heard of Nikki Haley until recently. I read some of her bio and I think on the surface she would be a great candidate. I would have loved for Condi to run.

And no male (other than Trump) is criticized. I seem to remember for years, W being called a chimp, or made fun of for his looks, his voice, his intellect. Reagan was called senile and was constantly scoffed at. Every Republican since Reagan has been called a fascist and a Nazi.
  #114  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:54 PM
Joanie Loves Trotsky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 24
We can absolutely have a female president. The assumption would be that the only voting bloc that is misogynistic is the Republican Party, but that doesn't wash because they loved Sarah Palin, and she was unqualified for the position. It's not like McCain would have won if he had a man as VP, though you could argue he lost because of Palin, but that had nothing to do with misogyny; it had to do with the fact she was a bad choice.

Hillary was just plain awful. Remember, many conservatives who are accused of being misogynistic (solely because they are conservatives) were also fans of Margaret Thatcher. Until you can present good evidence that people didn't vote for her MAINLY for the reason that she is a woman, it's just conjecture. She lost to Trump. That should tell you how bad a candidate she was.

The woman who gets elected has to be one who is going to be centrist/moderate enough to appeal to both sides and get the swing voters. Obama was able to pull that off. Elizabeth Warren, for example, wouldn't, because she is firmly entrenched way to the left. If the Dems are going to try get the Presidency, the worst mistake they could do is nominate Warren, and then run a dog-whistle platform of "if you don't vote for her, you're a misogynist."

Making the point that someone should be voted for because they are a certain gender, race, religion, etc., is the most un-American thing I could think of. They should be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin, or something like that...I heard that somewhere.

Last edited by Joanie Loves Trotsky; 08-23-2017 at 12:56 PM.
  #115  
Old 08-23-2017, 03:44 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by treis View Post
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.
A cursory look at your data and a quick Google search seem to indicate...well, I was wrong. I WAS basing this on articles I read right after the election and hadn't bothered to look at it again. I guess Trump did, in fact, get more votes than Romney. I haven't looked at the vote distribution in the various states to see what the EC count would have been, but it seems I was wrong. Thanks for the info. I won't use THAT argument again at least.
  #116  
Old 08-23-2017, 07:13 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You said "much more likely". Is that based on some sort of a quantitative analysis or more of a gut-level feeling?
Based on research findings that news coverage of female politicians tends to skew towards their personal traits over substantive issues more than news coverage of male politicians, and that news coverage of personal appearance for female presidential candidates is about four times as great as similar appearance-based news coverage for male ones.

In other words, as I claimed, female politicians are indeed much more likely to be critiqued for appearance/temperament issues than male politicians are.

Of course, that doesn't mean that male politicians never get that kind of superficial criticism: they certainly do, and in fact there are some highly unattractive and/or temperamental male politicians who get almost nothing else (e.g., Donald Trump, Chris Christie).

But my point stands that that kind of criticism is disproportionately applied to female politicians.
  #117  
Old 08-23-2017, 07:20 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I guess Trump did, in fact, get more votes than Romney.
Note, by the way, that the US population in 2012 was about 314 million and in 2016 about 323 million. If the population keeps increasing while the ratio of voters to the general population stays roughly constant (which I don't know for sure in this case, but which seems like a plausible general trend), then the absolute number of votes cast in every election is likely to exceed the absolute number of votes cast in the preceding one. So that factor has to be taken into account when attempting to use absolute numbers of votes cast to assess candidate popularity.
  #118  
Old 08-24-2017, 08:14 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,090
Votes by PResidential election:

2016: 136.7 million
2012: 129.1 million
2008: 131.3 million
2004: 122.3 million
2000: 105.4 million
1996: 96.3 million
1992: 104.4 million
1988: 91.6 million
1984: 92.7 million
1980: 86.5 million

There is a general upward trend as the population increases but, clearly, enthusiasm for voting seems to vary from election to election. 1992 saw a whopping increase completely out of proportion to previous elections; one could theorize the 1992 race was simply very interesting, with the prospect for change and a third party candidate drawing many new voters. You then have a big, big jump when Bush 2 was re-elected in 2004, which I admit I find interesting and I'm not sure why that happened, and then another bump in 2008, again probably excitement over Obama. The 2016 turnout is essentially a continuation of 2004-2008; 2012, with a depressed turnout, is kind of the outlier.
  #119  
Old 08-25-2017, 07:35 PM
SpoilerVirgin is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: An antique land
Posts: 7,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
You then have a big, big jump when Bush 2 was re-elected in 2004, which I admit I find interesting and I'm not sure why that happened...
Something happened in 2001 that had a profound impact on the fabric of American society and reverbated to the 2004 election.
  #120  
Old 08-26-2017, 06:23 AM
gatorslap is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 781
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a substantial margin and only lost in the electoral college by losing three states very narrowly. If she had lost because the country wasn't ready for a female president, I would think she would have lost more decisively. As it went, any number of things could have tipped the election to her.
  #121  
Old 08-28-2017, 12:30 PM
Bobdavis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: On the road again.
Posts: 7

Not true.


The US was ready for Elizabeth Warren but the people in charge are too idiotic to be able to cultivate those with the most potential, with respect to what the majority craves.

That's a mouthful.
  #122  
Old 08-28-2017, 12:34 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatorslap View Post
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a substantial margin and only lost in the electoral college by losing three states very narrowly. If she had lost because the country wasn't ready for a female president, I would think she would have lost more decisively. As it went, any number of things could have tipped the election to her.
This.

Reminds me of some posters who say that Florida was "rigged" for Bush in 2000 and that Gore should have spent his campaign resources in other swing states instead. "Rigged" when the outcome difference was 0.01%?
  #123  
Old 08-28-2017, 03:36 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobdavis View Post
The US was ready for Elizabeth Warren but the people in charge are too idiotic to be able to cultivate those with the most potential, with respect to what the majority craves.

That's a mouthful.
If the people were ready for Elizabeth Warren, then why the heck didn't Elizabeth Warren run for president already?

It's all very well and good to pontificate about what the public really wants. But the way the public shows these things is by actually voting. You think the Republican establishment in 2016 wanted Donald Fucking Trump? Of course they didn't, but the problem for them is that Trump got more votes than anybody else.

So of course the Democratic establishment in 2016 didn't want Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. They wanted Hillary. They backed Hillary. But they also backed Hillary back in 2008, and look how far that got her. But in 2016 the only person running against her in the primary was Sanders. And Sanders didn't get as many votes as Hillary. That's just the facts. Would Sanders have done better if the Establishment had backed him, or played fair and didn't support Hillary? Sure, probably? But so what? Why do you think they didn't support Sanders? If Sanders had been the type of person who would get the support of the Democratic establishment, he wouldn't have been the candidate you wanted.

Elizabeth Warren is not the transformative candidate you're looking for. The Democratic establishment is never going to talk up someone with left-wing economic views, because they're the establishment. If you want an economic left winger you're going to have to get used to the idea of winning against the establishment, not somehow winning over the establishment. You only win over the establishment AFTER you've beaten them.
  #124  
Old 08-30-2017, 08:11 AM
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 31,431
The U.S. will probably elect a woman President in my lifetime, and she's to be center to right of center, with hawkish views on military intervention abroad (HRC would have mostly qualified, but the amount of negative baggage she carried (which would've required a major Air Force One fleet expansion) has ruled her out to this point. Not that she's quit trying.

Surprising that Maxine Waters was cited as an example of an accomplished female candidate derided due to gender. Beyond dipping into conspiracy theory (i.e. promoting the idea that the C.I.A. was responsible for the crack epidemic) she's been cited as one of the most corrupt members of Congress by a liberal watchdog group.

"According to Chuck Neubauer and Ted Rohrlich writing in the Los Angeles Times in 2004, Maxine Waters' relatives had made more than $1 million during the preceding eight years by doing business with companies, candidates and causes that Waters had helped. They claimed she and her husband helped a company get government bond business, and her daughter Karen Waters and son Edward Waters have profited from her connections. Waters replied that "They do their business and I do mine."[60] Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) named Waters to its list of corrupt members of Congress in its 2005, 2006, 2009 and 2011 reports. She was accused of using her position to prevail upon officials to meet with OneUnited Bank without disclosing that she and her husband had significant stock holdings in the company.[61] Since she was on the Financial Services Committee she largely had the role of determining where TARP funds would go. $12 Million in TARP funds went to OneUnited without her ever disclosing that she had a financial stake at the company.[62][63][64] Citizens Against Government Waste named her the June 2009 Porker of the Month due to her intention to obtain an earmark for the Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxine_Waters
  #125  
Old 08-30-2017, 04:16 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,374
Sure, just like it was firmly believed that the first black president would be a Republican.

The first woman President will be whoever the first woman President turns out to be. She'll be a real person, not a Frankensteinian monster cobbled together by focus groups. A few decisions made differently, and it could have been Hillary, despite all her faults.

I agree though that the first woman President isn't going to be some radical left-winger, because America isn't going to vote for a radical left wing candidate for President, male or female. That's firmly outside the American political mainstream. And the only President in the modern era who was elected from outside the political mainstream is Donald Trump.
  #126  
Old 12-14-2017, 12:12 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 15,547
I'm giving this a bump to see if there's more discussion. The climate WRT to women in public life has changed since August when I started this thread. There's been a shift...a disillusionment with men in public life, a ripple in the Force. The grind is not so firm for men as it was.

What do y'all think, in light of recent developments?
  #127  
Old 12-14-2017, 01:17 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Look at the numbers from 2016. Black voting participation declined by seven percentage points. If African-Americans in those three states we keep hearing so much about had voted at the rate they had voted for Obama, Clinton would have won all three states.

To says to me that a non-white candidate is essential in 2020.

I don't see any non-white female politicians with the name recognition and status to even win the nomination. Oprah, maybe, could. That would be a sight to see. We'd have to extend light-night shows to 24 hours to handle the joke volumes.

Realistically, though, we have to stop the false narrative about white men taking back their country and voting for Trump. They've peaked. What hasn't peaked is the non-white vote. Get them to the polls and everything changes, including whether a woman can win.
While the percentage of women voting Democratic increased in the Alabama Senate election this week, of greater significance is that the black vote far exceeded all expectations. Doug Jones made a special effort to woo black voters and it appears to have made the difference. Black women, BTW, voted 98% for Jones.

I'm encouraged that women are running for races at every level, because building numbers at local and low levels increases chances for higher office. At the Senate and Presidential level, though, being a woman does not yet seem to be the tipping point and I'd be surprised if the 2018 races changed that.
  #128  
Old 12-14-2017, 01:28 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,491
After she does a term for Governor of Oregon, I could get behind a "Tina Kotek For Prez" campaign.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 12-14-2017 at 01:28 PM.
  #129  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:27 PM
Smitty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post

This comes under the heading of Sad But True: only a white man can defeat Donald Trump.
So you are of the opinion that, were he able to run again, Obama would have lost to Trump? Yeah, your argument kind of falls apart on that one.
__________________
There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
  #130  
Old 12-15-2017, 01:00 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,713
I missed this thread earlier this summer but the topic caught my eye today as timely since I had just read this piece from The Atlantic. I think a simple acknowledgement that women are equally qualified for the country's highest positions of leadership will be one of the powerful sources driving 21st century politics because the trend will be in a one-way direction.
  #131  
Old 12-15-2017, 03:10 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 15,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
I missed this thread earlier this summer but the topic caught my eye today as timely since I had just read this piece from The Atlantic. I think a simple acknowledgement that women are equally qualified for the country's highest positions of leadership will be one of the powerful sources driving 21st century politics because the trend will be in a one-way direction.
There are absolutely many women who are qualified. That's not the issue. It's not the candidates who are backward, it's the voters. That may have changed since so many heretofore esteemed men have recently been found to have...er...feet of clay. That's why I resurrected the thread.

What do you mean by "the trend will be in a one way direction"? Not clear to me.
  #132  
Old 12-15-2017, 03:21 PM
Silver lining is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 738
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), if she had been a white man, s/he could have beaten Trump. Apart from all of her "crimes" (real and/or fabricated), including personal/professional/fashion/demeanor/hairstyle faults and failings, I'm convinced that the sheer, visceral hatred of Hillary comes down to her being a woman. People hate her more than they hate Bill-- go figure. There's a very wide streak of "No woman is going to be the boss of me!" running right down the center of the country. Other developed countries don't seem to have this-- again, go figure.

Ever is a long, long time, but I'm going to go out on a limb: I don't think the USA will ever be ready for a woman President. What do y'all think?
Hillary Clinton was Lady Macbeth in the flesh, full of ambition scandals, and lies.

There is no reason why a woman cannot be president, but I suspect there will not be a major party candidate that is female on the ballot for President in the next eight years.
  #133  
Old 12-15-2017, 04:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,476
I suspect that if we looked it up, most states have had a female win a state-wide election at some point in their history, probably quite recently. The voters aren't backwards, they just didn't like that one particular woman enough for her to win. If someone like Nikki Haley ran and got significant support from other women, she'd win handily.
  #134  
Old 12-15-2017, 04:24 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 15,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty View Post
So you are of the opinion that, were he able to run again, Obama would have lost to Trump? Yeah, your argument kind of falls apart on that one.
I don't know. Could Obama have beaten Trump in 2016? Could Obama beat Trump in 2020? I don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
...There is no reason why a woman cannot be president, but I suspect there will not be a major party candidate that is female on the ballot for President in the next eight years.
Why do you think that is?
  #135  
Old 12-15-2017, 04:38 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants 2010ē2012ē2014!
Posts: 25,233
The US is definitely ready for a female president. One almost won it.

And then there’s this:

Quote:
As of 2017, a total of 22 states have never had a female governor. Those states are: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Nine of these states (Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah) have never even seen a major party nominate a female candidate in a gubernatorial election, even though Minnesota has elected seven consecutive female lieutenant governors from 1982 to the present day.
From Wikipedia’s List of female governors in the United States.
  #136  
Old 12-15-2017, 04:41 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 ThelmaLou View Post
I don't know. Could Obama have beaten Trump in 2016?
Yes.
  #137  
Old 12-15-2017, 04:42 PM
Rutherford B is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 31
Elizabeth Warren...........the first woman and first native American president ?..........SARC
  #138  
Old 12-15-2017, 05:53 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
The US is definitely ready for a female president. One almost won it.

And then thereís this:

Quote:
As of 2017, a total of 22 states have never had a female governor. Those states are: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Nine of these states (Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah) have never even seen a major party nominate a female candidate in a gubernatorial election, even though Minnesota has elected seven consecutive female lieutenant governors from 1982 to the present day.
From Wikipediaís List of female governors in the United States.
There's also the Senators:

Quote:
Twenty-nine states have been represented by female senators, and 18 are currently represented.
from Wikipedia's Women in the United States Senate: List of states represented by women

Comparing the two lists, it looks like there aren't a lot of states were a women has not won a top-tier race.
  #139  
Old 12-15-2017, 07:15 PM
Rutherford B is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 31
I would have no problem voting for a REAL woman.

I would never vote for a person who " feels" they are a woman or who surgically was made like a woman.
  #140  
Old 12-15-2017, 07:20 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
Hillary Clinton was Lady Macbeth in the flesh, full of ambition scandals, and lies.

There is no reason why a woman cannot be president, but I suspect there will not be a major party candidate that is female on the ballot for President in the next eight years.
I don't think Lady Macbeth would have won the popular vote, do you?
  #141  
Old 12-15-2017, 07:28 PM
JackieLikesVariety's Avatar
JackieLikesVariety is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutherford B View Post
I would have no problem voting for a REAL woman.

I would never vote for a person who " feels" they are a woman or who surgically was made like a woman.
why in the world is someone's surgical history your business?
  #142  
Old 12-15-2017, 07:35 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,306
I donít think itís impossible to elect a female president, BUT I agree with the OPís basic message that misogyny played a bigger role in Clintonís loss than is generally acknowledged, and itís not worth risking this in 2020.
  #143  
Old 12-15-2017, 07:39 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
I don't think Lady Macbeth would have won the popular vote, do you?
Running against whom?
  #144  
Old 12-15-2017, 07:58 PM
Fretful Porpentine is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bohemia. A seacoast.
Posts: 6,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's also the Senators:



from Wikipedia's Women in the United States Senate: List of states represented by women

Comparing the two lists, it looks like there aren't a lot of states were a women has not won a top-tier race.
Yes. Mississippi is the only state that has never had a female governor or member of Congress. (I wish one would step up, but sadly, while we've got a few promising Democratic challengers for Congressional seats in 2018, they are all male.)
__________________
Live merrily, and trust to good verses.
-- Robert Herrick
  #145  
Old 12-15-2017, 08:13 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants 2010ē2012ē2014!
Posts: 25,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety View Post
why in the world is someone's surgical history your business?
Really. Especially for political leadership purposes ó their chromosomes and/or outward appearance are not primary concerns. I look for someone who can effectively lead, in the directions I think are best for the country (or state, county, city).
  #146  
Old 12-15-2017, 08:14 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants 2010ē2012ē2014!
Posts: 25,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fretful Porpentine View Post
Yes. Mississippi is the only state that has never had a female governor or member of Congress. (I wish one would step up, but sadly, while we've got a few promising Democratic challengers for Congressional seats in 2018, they are all male.)
Only MS, and no other state? Thanks for cross-checking the lists.
  #147  
Old 12-15-2017, 08:34 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants 2010ē2012ē2014!
Posts: 25,233
I’m finding more states than just Mississippi. ETA: only Governors and US Senators here. US Reps not included.

Someone please check my work. From the above-referenced Wikipedia pages (emphasis mine):

US SENATORS

Quote:
There have been 50 total women in the United States Senate since its establishment in 1789.
States never represented by a female Senator: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming.

GOVERNORS
Quote:
As of May 2017, forty-two women have served or are serving as the governor of a U.S. state (including one from the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, two Mayors of the District of Columbia and two acting governors due to vacancies).
Quote:
As of 2017, a total of 22 states have never had a female governor. Those states are: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Nine of these states (Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah) have never even seen a major party nominate a female candidate in a gubernatorial election, even though Minnesota has elected seven consecutive female lieutenant governors from 1982 to the present day.
So the states are: Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia.

7 states. Not bad, but we can do better. (Not we, per se, but voters in those states!)

Last edited by Bullitt; 12-15-2017 at 08:35 PM.
  #148  
Old 12-15-2017, 09:28 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 15,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
I donít think itís impossible to elect a female president, BUT I agree with the OPís basic message that misogyny played a bigger role in Clintonís loss than is generally acknowledged, and itís not worth risking this in 2020.
Thank you. That is EXACTLY my point. Even though Hillary actually did win the election, the wounds of all the mysogynistic baggage clinging to her will make it very hard for a woman to run and win any time soon. IMHO. The Dems have to reclaim the presidency in 2020, and it's not worth the risk to run a woman, no matter how capable or qualified.

Even though it's probably correct that Obama could have beaten thump in 2016, Obama was a very rare candidate of any race or gender-- charismatic, well-educated, personable, charming, well-spoken, good-looking, healthy, with a gorgeous family, and without a whisper of any of the financial, family, sexual, legal, or any other scandals that plague just about everyone else in public life. It will be a while before anyone like him comes along again--maybe never.

I don't know if everyone has gotten my point, although my thread title says it: THE USA IS NOT READY... not that there are no qualified women--of course there are. THE USA IS NOT READY. I wish Joe Biden were 15 years younger (he probably does, too ).
  #149  
Old 12-15-2017, 09:35 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
I think you're confusing "getting your point" with "agreeing with your point". We get your point; it's just that most of us don't agree with it.

Yes, it's more difficult for woman than a man. But it's a lot more difficult for black person than a white person. And yet we elected a black man, even though (by your logic) the country wasn't ready for that to happen.

Last edited by John Mace; 12-15-2017 at 09:39 PM.
  #150  
Old 12-15-2017, 11:34 PM
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 31,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
I don't think the USA will ever be ready for a woman President.
I'm even more convinced that U.S. voters will never elect a black President.

Like, c'mon, there's too much visceral racism out there.
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 06:16 PM.

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