Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:15 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 15,761

The USA is not now and may never be ready for a woman President


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?
  #2  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:24 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,356
Oh I don't think so. Kansas is pretty conservative and we used to have a woman governor and we have had several female congress persons.

Sarah Palin was the governor of Alaska and was a candidate for vice president.

So I think the right woman can and will win. Hillary though wasn't that person.
  #3  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:28 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
If she had been a man, she wouldn't have been Mrs. Clinton and riding on name recognition. And how on earth do you get the idea that she was more qualified than, say, GHW Bush, just to take one recent example? The guy had a resume of qualifications a mile long.

I don't see any reason why a qualified, likable woman candidate can't get elected president in the US. That woman is not Warren (for lots or reasons that have nothing with her being a woman), but it could very well be someone else.
  #4  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:38 AM
JcWoman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,964
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.)
  #5  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:39 AM
SpoilerVirgin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: An antique land
Posts: 7,121
I also disagree entirely with the OP. Most people did not think we could elect a black president until Barack Obama came along. Hillary was a terrible candidate, but her defeat gives me no reason to think that the right woman at the right time couldn't be elected. I think it's probably 50/50 whether the first woman president will be a Republican or a Democrat.

I am a female, liberal Democrat, and I have something very close to a visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton that has nothing to do with her gender. I support plenty of awesome women in government, including my Congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi, my two Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and Senator Elizabeth Warren. But I do not like and have never liked Hillary Clinton.
  #6  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:45 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,058
Quote:
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.
Yeah...it was sad that that Obama guy never got elected because he was black and all. I think we'd have really been better off with him as president, but only white males can win elections in the US...

Oh...wait....!

Elizabeth Warren wouldn't win, IMHO, but not because she is a woman. Clinton didn't lose because she was a woman either...and she didn't lose because radical right wingers would never vote for a woman. 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. Trump got fewer votes than Romney did against Obama yet still won. The take away from that is to ensure that the loony lefty types fucking get out and vote this time even if they don't get their optimal candidate and that the centrists are on board and not marginalized by someone saying they are as much of the enemy as the right wing (which is what would happen if either Bernie boy hobbles into the next election or if Warren gets the nod).

Quote:
This comes under the heading of Sad But True: only a white man can defeat Donald Trump.
Your assertion comes under the heading of Simply Wrong.

Last edited by XT; 08-22-2017 at 10:47 AM.
  #7  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:45 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,263
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.
  #8  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:51 AM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Oh I don't think so. Kansas is pretty conservative and we used to have a woman governor and we have had several female congress persons.

Sarah Palin was the governor of Alaska and was a candidate for vice president.

So I think the right woman can and will win. Hillary though wasn't that person.
If I were betting on it, I would go with Urbanredneck. A female from the GOP side of the aisle is the most likely to make it to the Whitehouse first.

While I agree there is an undercurrent of sexism at play against Hillary, and other female Democratic notables, we have seen time and time again that deep objections from those on the Right to something about a Democrat fall away when the same trait resides with someone on their "team". Hell, in spite of all of their use of bathroom bills as wedge issues, they would vote for Caitlyn Jenner without any sense of irony because she is a Republican.
  #9  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:55 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 Icarus View Post
If I were betting on it, I would go with Urbanredneck. A female from the GOP side of the aisle is the most likely to make it to the Whitehouse first.
Yeah, a lot of us that the first black president would be a Republican for the same reasons. But I will agree with the OP on one issue-- all things being equal, the woman is going to have a tougher time than the man. I just don't think it's insurmountable for the right candidate. And I actually think the US is ready for a woman president. Change is in the air, and Generic White Guy doesn't say much about change.
  #10  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:56 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,520
Hillary was an awful candidate. The line about the most qualified candidate was a good example of how insultingly stupid her candidacy was. She had all of her husbands baggage with none of the charm.
A good female candidate would have an advantage because they are harder to attack and the press would love the glass ceiling story. The problem is there have been a lack of good candidates.
  #11  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:58 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
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.
The last candidate to get more popular votes while still losing the electoral college was a Senator for eight years just like Hillary Clinton was -- but he followed it up with eight years as VP instead of four years as SoS; and all of that was after he spent eight years in the House of Representatives, like Hillary Clinton didn't.

Do you think Gore would've beaten Trump?
  #12  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:02 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
And how on earth do you get the idea that she was more qualified than, say, GHW Bush, just to take one recent example?
She was a Senator for 8 years (compared to 4 years in the House for GHW Bush), Secretary of State for 4 years (compared to GHW Bush's 1-2 years runs at a couple of different foreign policy posts), and spent 8 years in the White House involved in policy work (same as GHW Bush).

Saying GHW Bush is more qualified on paper really depends on assigning minimal value to Clinton's time as First Lady as compared to Bush's time as Vice President. But neither First Lady nor Vice President has any actual duties that give them relevant experience. It's down to what they actually did during that time. Not at all clear to me that Bush did more than Clinton.

Of course, "qualification" is an inherently disputed value. But I don't think it's a "how on earth"-level quandary why so many people would regard her as the most qualified candidate going back many decades.
  #13  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:04 AM
Channing Idaho Banks's Avatar
Channing Idaho Banks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: beautiful Idaho
Posts: 2,667
I'm guessing Oprah Winfrey is not on your short list of candidates.
  #14  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:06 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 15,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
...Change is in the air, and Generic White Guy doesn't say much about change.
Change was in the air, but now-- after too big a change-- the fear in the air trumps (as it were) the desire for change.

I didn't say only a White Guy can be President. I said only a White Guy can defeat Donald Trump.

And it can't be "Generic White Guy." It needs to be a leader with some charisma. So far, no Democrats have emerged (male or female) that fit that description.

I appreciate the different points of view being expressed, especially the ones that disagree with me. I wanted this to be a debate (of sorts), so thank you. Logical points noted, but I think in the privacy of the voting booth, it's the gut that pulls the lever not the brain, i.e., fear, not hope.
  #15  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:08 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
I'm a white male conservative Republican, and could easily see myself voting for a number of women for President, and I (respectfully) disagree with the OP. One line in particular stuck out to me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
This comes under the heading of Sad But True: only a white man can defeat Donald Trump.
I don't think that's true at all. Trump's not a very good candidate. He only won because he was going against a particularly bad one. Think back to 3 years before Obama's '08 campaign. He wasn't perceived as the unstoppable political juggernaut that he is thought of as today by some. There could easily be another Obama-esque candidate lurking out there in the wings that could sweep to victory in '20.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-22-2017 at 11:10 AM.
  #16  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:12 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,656
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?
I think there will be a woman president, but it may not be in the mold of a Hillary Clinton. Nikki Hailey may not be everyone's idea of the ideal first female president, but she's a potential rising political star. If you don't like her, keep your eye on someone like Tulsi Gabbard. She'd pass the 'tough' test, which is what a lot of Americans instinctively look for in a CiC. And I think she's still considered an outsider given her background and that she represents Hawaii. She's a moderate democrat so she'll probably bring in liberals while not scaring away moderate conservatives and independents.

I agree that Hillary was probably not the most likable female candidate that could have been nominated and that future women will be better than her in that regard. But that doesn't mean that sexism wasn't a factor in this campaign and in the tarring and feathering of candidate Clinton. It wasn't the only factor - I'll grant you that. But I don't buy that sexism didn't play at least some role in her decades-long character assassination.

Last edited by asahi; 08-22-2017 at 11:14 AM.
  #17  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:15 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Change was in the air, but now-- after too big a change-- the fear in the air trumps (as it were) the desire for change.

I didn't say only a White Guy can be President. I said only a White Guy can defeat Donald Trump.

And it can't be "Generic White Guy." It needs to be a leader with some charisma. So far, no Democrats have emerged (male or female) that fit that description.

I appreciate the different points of view being expressed, especially the ones that disagree with me. I wanted this to be a debate (of sorts), so thank you. Logical points noted, but I think in the privacy of the voting booth, it's the gut that pulls the lever not the brain, i.e., fear, not hope.
I think you are just wrong on this. It's not only a white guy that can beat Trump. I seriously doubt Bernie, as white as they come and presumably, a guy, could or would beat Trump. What you need is the right CANDIDATE to beat him. Bring in the right person (black, white, hispanic, asian or other, male or female) and I think they would beat him. The biggest challenge facing the Democrats right now isn't Trump or the Republicans...it's their own party tearing itself apart in the Progressives verse The Establishment wars. The Dems seem to be the party able to snatch defeat from the slavering jaws of victory, and it doesn't matter what the color of the candidate is or if they have a Y chromosome or not at this point.
  #18  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:18 AM
Evan Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,719
I am pretty sure that most Americans would welcome a female president. Hillary just sucked so much even a Trump could win against her.



That's kind of an achievement.
  #19  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:36 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,759
I agree with you, ThelmaLou. I hate that it's true, but I do believe it's true.

It's not just Hillary Clinton. It's Nancy Pelosi. It's Kamala Harris. It's Maxine Waters. It's Elizabeth Warren. It's Diane Feinstein. I could go on.

Every one of these women are mocked for appearance and temperament, things that are usually completely overlooked for men in the same offices. I often engaged in an exercise during the election that yielded interesting results. When discussing Hillary Clinton's suitability for the office of President, and the responder replied that they "just didn't like her, not that it has anything to do with her being a woman," I would ask, "So what woman do you think would be suitable?"

In every single instance, the responder was unable to come up with a name off the top of their head. They would often get back to me within a day or two, naming one or maybe two women. But they always, always had to think about it.

I think there is a sub rosa strata of misogyny that runs through our country. A lot of it is borne of patriarchal religious upbringing that many women in this country do not shake -- and men, either. They can't quite put their finger on why they don't think a woman is qualified -- even if she's already doing her job well -- but they just "know" she's not. They "just don't like" her.

If Hillary Clinton wasn't the "right" female candidate, then I don't know who is. She is a woman who had a dream to be the first female President of the United States. What is wrong with that? It's perfectly ok if you're a man. She devoted her life to realizing this dream. She spent her entire career in public service, bettering the lives of others.

She married Bill, and that may have been the worst choice she ever made in her life. And then was chastised for standing by him, even by people who claimed that the sanctity of marriage is one of the most important things in the world.

Some of Hillary's accomplishments, for those who love to say she didn't have any: Partial List of Hillary Clinton's Accomplishments. People may not agree with them, but they were accomplishments.

Before you say they're no big deal, I invite you to stack them up against any man's who ran in the Republican primary race in 2016.

She is not the best candidate. She's lousy at campaigning. She admits this. But several studies found an interesting thing. Here's an article that describes the results: We Love Women in Office Until they Ask for a Promotion. Then we vilify them.

Watch what happens to any woman we may advance on the Democratic side. She'll be vilified in exactly the same way as Hillary. Any woman arising on the Republican side would be likewise vilified in the Republican primary. (Including Nikki Haley. God, what an idiot. She only looks good next to the Seriously Scary Women of the Republican Party such as Carly Fiorina, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Susan Collins would be terrific, but she's too smart to run.)

I don't know how to change it. But I do know that continually pushing women for the presidency at a time when the country is not ready for it is not a good strategy to change it. You have to be at the table to facilitate change, and that won't happen if we keep trying to make people eat their broccoli. (Hat tip to GHW Bush, who was eminently qualified for the office. As was Hillary Clinton, far more than the clown presently occupying the space.)

I think a woman might leapfrog into the presidency as a Vice. My pick for 2020: Sherrod Brown/Kamala Harris.
  #20  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I agree with you, ThelmaLou. I hate that it's true, but I do believe it's true.

It's not just Hillary Clinton. It's Nancy Pelosi. It's Kamala Harris. It's Maxine Waters. It's Elizabeth Warren. It's Diane Feinstein. I could go on.

Every one of these women are mocked for appearance and temperament, things that are usually completely overlooked for men in the same offices.
Ummm ... I don't know if you've been around for the last year, but President Trump has been mocked incessantly for his appearance and temperament. Just do a search here on the Dope for the word "orange" if you need a cite.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I often engaged in an exercise during the election that yielded interesting results. When discussing Hillary Clinton's suitability for the office of President, and the responder replied that they "just didn't like her, not that it has anything to do with her being a woman," I would ask, "So what woman do you think would be suitable?"

In every single instance, the responder was unable to come up with a name off the top of their head. They would often get back to me within a day or two, naming one or maybe two women. But they always, always had to think about it.
I don't think it's a great surprise that most ordinary folks can't name many politicians off the top of their head. I think you're imagining sexism where ignorance is a better explanation.
  #21  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:17 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow
It's not just Hillary Clinton. It's Nancy Pelosi. It's Kamala Harris. It's Maxine Waters. It's Elizabeth Warren. It's Diane Feinstein. I could go on.
Who is keeping them down? IIRC, Kamala Harris has been under attack by Sanders and Warren et al and the progressives, not because she is a woman but because she isn't progressive and is establishment (I could be thinking of someone else here). Warren and Feinstein aren't attacked because they are women, but because of their progressive views by those who don't' agree with those views. I'm not seeing anyone in your example as someone being put down or kept down because they are women, but instead, women who are being attacked because of their political stances by people who don't agree with those stances.

Last edited by XT; 08-22-2017 at 12:19 PM.
  #22  
Old 08-22-2017, 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 Richard Parker View Post
She was a Senator for 8 years (compared to 4 years in the House for GHW Bush), Secretary of State for 4 years (compared to GHW Bush's 1-2 years runs at a couple of different foreign policy posts), and spent 8 years in the White House involved in policy work (same as GHW Bush).

Saying GHW Bush is more qualified on paper really depends on assigning minimal value to Clinton's time as First Lady as compared to Bush's time as Vice President. But neither First Lady nor Vice President has any actual duties that give them relevant experience. It's down to what they actually did during that time. Not at all clear to me that Bush did more than Clinton.

Of course, "qualification" is an inherently disputed value. But I don't think it's a "how on earth"-level quandary why so many people would regard her as the most qualified candidate going back many decades.
BHW Bush:

WWII Fighter Pilot (WWII veteran)
US House of Representatives
Ambassador to the UN
Chairman of the GOP National Committee
Envoy to PRC (basically ambassador, but we didn't have official relations with PRC at the time)
Director, CIA
Vice President, 2 terms

I don't see how anyone could say that HRC has more qualifications than that.
  #23  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:21 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
BHW Bush:

WWII Fighter Pilot (WWII veteran)
US House of Representatives
Ambassador to the UN
Chairman of the GOP National Committee
Envoy to PRC (basically ambassador, but we didn't have official relations with PRC at the time)
Director, CIA
Vice President, 2 terms

I don't see how anyone could say that HRC has more qualifications than that.
In addition, it's hard to see how being First Lady is comparable to being Vice President. While VP is pretty undefined except wrt the succession it's still a political position that does entail quite a lot experience with Washington politics as part of its job, not just as a secondary or tertiary benefit to simply being married to the president.

ETA: And for the record, I voted for Hillary and thought she was the best candidate.

Last edited by XT; 08-22-2017 at 12:24 PM.
  #24  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:28 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
In every single instance, the responder was unable to come up with a name off the top of their head. They would often get back to me within a day or two, naming one or maybe two women. But they always, always had to think about it.
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.
  #25  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:28 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Hillary was plenty qualified (beyond the official qualifications listed in the US Constitution). She would have made a perfectly good president. No need to claim she was "the single most qualified candidate ever to run for President".

Last edited by John Mace; 08-22-2017 at 12:29 PM.
  #26  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:29 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Ummm ... I don't know if you've been around for the last year, but President Trump has been mocked incessantly for his appearance and temperament. Just do a search here on the Dope for the word "orange" if you need a cite.
What else did he bring to the table, in terms of political experience? Did you see tons of mocking for the appearances or temperaments of Marco Rubio? John Kasich? Rand Paul? No. They were all granted the threshold gravitas to run for the office, in a way that Hillary Clinton was not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't think it's a great surprise that most ordinary folks can't name many politicians off the top of their head. I think you're imagining sexism where ignorance is a better explanation.
These were all people who claim to be pretty dialed in politically and my conversational experiences with them bore that out. So just not true.
  #27  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:34 PM
Hilarity N. Suze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Denver
Posts: 7,889
When Bill Clinton was running for Prez, I read a few profiles of Hillary and thought, "Man, she's the one who should be running." There was a certain amount of commentary to the effect that perhaps he wouldn't be president if he wasn't married to her. She seemed perfect, but she did not have his charisma, which is apparently an important factor. He's got it, she doesn't (apparently; I have met him, and he sure does. I have never met her.)

But what gets me is, if a woman runs for the office apparently she has to be absolutely perfect in every way. This obviously does not apply to any of the men.

Obviously anybody running will be mocked for anything--pantsuits, hairstyle, carrying dogs on the roof of their car. And there is always something. And obviously you can successfully run for president without any charisma at all (Nixon, you-know-who).

But I think a successful female candidate will have to have an amazing personality, fashion sense, uncontroversial hairstyle, along with everything else required to make the run (lots of connections, money, track record).
  #28  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:35 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Who is keeping them down? IIRC, Kamala Harris has been under attack by Sanders and Warren et al and the progressives, not because she is a woman but because she isn't progressive and is establishment (I could be thinking of someone else here). Warren and Feinstein aren't attacked because they are women, but because of their progressive views by those who don't' agree with those views. I'm not seeing anyone in your example as someone being put down or kept down because they are women, but instead, women who are being attacked because of their political stances by people who don't agree with those stances.
There are certainly many of those. I'm not talking about them. It's perfectly normal to have disagreements with politicians on the merits of their positions. I didn't agree with Obama or H. Clinton on some of their stances, either. But I'm capable of discerning a qualified candidate from an unqualified one -- and a significant number of Americans aren't, it would seem.

As for people who are being put down or kept down because they are women, I think you might want to keep an eye on the things that are said about Elizabeth Warren, particularly. She is frequently described as "shrill, hysterical, unhinged, know-it-all." Those are not legitimate criticisms and are generally reserved for female candidates.
  #29  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:35 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 15,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I agree with you, ThelmaLou. I hate that it's true, but I do believe it's true.

...
I agree with every word you wrote. The problem is compounded by the huge national (and SDMB) blind spot about whether there even is an issue.
  #30  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:37 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,759
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.
I asked people like you. They did not have responses at the ready. It really was an eye-opening experience. Try it yourself, among your learned peers. I think you may be surprised.
  #31  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:42 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 Aspenglow View Post
I often engaged in an exercise during the election that yielded interesting results. When discussing Hillary Clinton's suitability for the office of President, and the responder replied that they "just didn't like her, not that it has anything to do with her being a woman," I would ask, "So what woman do you think would be suitable?"

In every single instance, the responder was unable to come up with a name off the top of their head. They would often get back to me within a day or two, naming one or maybe two women. But they always, always had to think about it.
Have you considered upgrading your friends?

Last edited by John Mace; 08-22-2017 at 12:42 PM.
  #32  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:42 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
There are certainly many of those. I'm not talking about them. It's perfectly normal to have disagreements with politicians on the merits of their positions. I didn't agree with Obama or H. Clinton on some of their stances, either. But I'm capable of discerning a qualified candidate from an unqualified one -- and a significant number of Americans aren't, it would seem.

As for people who are being put down or kept down because they are women, I think you might want to keep an eye on the things that are said about Elizabeth Warren, particularly. She is frequently described as "shrill, hysterical, unhinged, know-it-all." Those are not legitimate criticisms and are generally reserved for female candidates.
I think Warren IS a 'shrill, hysterical unhinged, know-it all' from a certain political view point, and has nothing to do with her sex. I think similar things about Trump, and he presumably has a dick (not that I want that mental picture).

I don't think America or the American voters are opposed to women in office, or a woman for president. I don't think that only a white male can defeat the orange one either. I think it's all about the right candidate, regardless of sex or race. The big issue I see is that Dems, especially those on the left think that their progressive mantra is the be all and end all and that they are being held back because of white racist (or the evil Democratic Establishment(tm...arr)), while I think it's because their politics are just not all that appealing to most voters, even if they have an old white guy sing them. Trump is definitely beatable and should be beaten...if the Dems can stop beating themselves up in these stupid internal wars for control. Sadly, I think the lesson many Dems 'learned' in the last election is that radical fringe politics can win elections...since the Donald won, that means the progressive and left wing should win as well.
  #33  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:45 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
What else did he bring to the table, in terms of political experience?
I don't understand. Are you saying it is acceptable to mock candidates for their appearance if they don't have significant "political experience", but it's not acceptable if they do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Did you see tons of mocking for the appearances or temperaments of Marco Rubio? John Kasich? Rand Paul? No.
I wouldn't claim that there was "tons of mocking" for anyone, but it certainly happened. Did you forget about 'Little Marco'? 'Low energy' Jeb? 'Crazy Bernie'? It's America. Our public figures get mocked. If not by each other then certainly by the citizenry. It's not something we only do to females.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
They were all granted the threshold gravitas to run for the office, in a way that Hillary Clinton was not.
I don't know what this means. "granted the threshold gravitas to run for the office"? Are you saying that people / media / fellow candidates didn't take her run seriously? Because that seems ... wrong.
  #34  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:49 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,290
There's a better chance of the first woman president being a Republican than a Democrat. For all the talk about how the GOP is "sexist," the Republicans typically support their Joni Ernsts, Sarah Palins, etc. with just as much fervor as their male counterparts. If a woman appeared to be the front-leading contender for the presidential candidacy , she would sail through the GOP nomination pretty easily.
  #35  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:50 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,290
IOW, Republicans care far more about whether someone has an (R) after their name than they care about the gender/race/skin color etc.
  #36  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:51 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I think Warren IS a 'shrill, hysterical unhinged, know-it all' from a certain political view point, and has nothing to do with her sex. I think similar things about Trump, and he presumably has a dick (not that I want that mental picture).

I don't think America or the American voters are opposed to women in office, or a woman for president. I don't think that only a white male can defeat the orange one either. I think it's all about the right candidate, regardless of sex or race. The big issue I see is that Dems, especially those on the left think that their progressive mantra is the be all and end all and that they are being held back because of white racist (or the evil Democratic Establishment(tm...arr)), while I think it's because their politics are just not all that appealing to most voters, even if they have an old white guy sing them. Trump is definitely beatable and should be beaten...if the Dems can stop beating themselves up in these stupid internal wars for control. Sadly, I think the lesson many Dems 'learned' in the last election is that radical fringe politics can win elections...since the Donald won, that means the progressive and left wing should win as well.
And in all this time, it's never been a woman who was "the right candidate" to be in either of the top two positions in our country. I do think you need to consider the role that misogyny has played in that. Your own example about Donald Trump winning, despite being the most unqualified, provable liar in the history of American politics, demonstrates that better than anything else.

Please notice that there are people in this thread who are attacking me solely on the basis of the quality of my friends, rather than advancing a thoughtful debate as a rebuttal. In Great Debates, no less.
  #37  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:55 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't understand. Are you saying it is acceptable to mock candidates for their appearance if they don't have significant "political experience", but it's not acceptable if they do?
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I wouldn't claim that there was "tons of mocking" for anyone, but it certainly happened. Did you forget about 'Little Marco'? 'Low energy' Jeb? 'Crazy Bernie'? It's America. Our public figures get mocked. If not by each other then certainly by the citizenry. It's not something we only do to females.
As I recall, there was only one candidate doing that. And rather than excoriate him for it, the Republican Party elected him instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't know what this means. "granted the threshold gravitas to run for the office"? Are you saying that people / media / fellow candidates didn't take her run seriously? Because that seems ... wrong.
If it seems... wrong, it should be easy for you to demonstrate that it's not the case. I'll look forward to your cites.

Last edited by Aspenglow; 08-22-2017 at 12:55 PM.
  #38  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:55 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
IOW, Republicans care far more about whether someone has an (R) after their name than they care about the gender/race/skin color etc.
I agree. I think it applies to Dems too though. Look at Aspenglow's post: "Nikki Haley. God, what an idiot." There's not much happiness there for a woman that might one day be president.

Or ask some Dems how the feel about Clarence Thomas. Generally their focus is decidedly not on how great it is that he's overcome so much racism to rise to a post on the highest court in the land or celebrating the achievements of a black man.
  #39  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:56 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 Aspenglow View Post
Please notice that there are people in this thread who are attacking me solely on the basis of the quality of my friends, rather than advancing a thoughtful debate as a rebuttal. In Great Debates, no less.
No one is attacking you on the basis of your friends. You introduced the quality of your friends as proof of the OP's thesis. Surely we are not required to accept said quality as proof of the thesis.
  #40  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:57 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,290
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?
I think you're placing women's odds further than they are. Hillary led Trump throughout the election, won the popular vote by 2%, was only 200,000 votes in the Rust Belt away from the presidency, and was weighed down by Obama's two terms (hard for a party to win three consecutive terms in the White House.)

In fact, I'd bet big money on a woman being president no later than the 2028 election. only question will be if it's a red or blue woman.
  #41  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:57 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
Why are you so desperate to find an excuse for Clinton's loss? May fought a general election here and no one blames her performance on her sex. May was arrogant, stupid, and a coward.
  #42  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:58 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
As I recall, there was only one candidate doing that.
You don't recall very well then: ABC: Marco Rubio Mocks Donald Trump's Spray Tan, Small Hands

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
If it seems... wrong, it should be easy for you to demonstrate that it's not the case. I'll look forward to your cites.
What is it, exactly, you want cites for? That "people / media / fellow candidates [took] her run seriously?"

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-22-2017 at 12:59 PM.
  #43  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:59 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
No one is attacking you on the basis of your friends. You introduced the quality of your friends as proof of the OP's thesis. Surely we are not required to accept said quality as proof of the thesis.
You certainly are not. But neither are you required to assume they are of poor quality. It was a gratuitous swipe, and you should own that.
  #44  
Old 08-22-2017, 01:02 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Why are you so desperate to find an excuse for Clinton's loss? May fought a general election here and no one blames her performance on her sex. May was arrogant, stupid, and a coward.
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.
  #45  
Old 08-22-2017, 01:02 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think you're placing women's odds further than they are. Hillary led Trump throughout the election, won the popular vote by 2%, was only 200,000 votes in the Rust Belt away from the presidency, and was weighed down by Obama's two terms (hard for a party to win three consecutive terms in the White House.)

In fact, I'd bet big money on a woman being president no later than the 2028 election. only question will be if it's a red or blue woman.
Heck, we already know one party was willing to nominate a woman; and we already knew the other party was willing to nominate one for VP. So as soon as both parties nominate a female candidate in the same election...
  #46  
Old 08-22-2017, 01:14 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow
And in all this time, it's never been a woman who was "the right candidate" to be in either of the top two positions in our country. I do think you need to consider the role that misogyny has played in that. Your own example about Donald Trump winning, despite being the most unqualified, provable liar in the history of American politics, demonstrates that better than anything else.
Exactly...in the few times that a woman has run for president in the US she was never the right candidate. Wasn't because she was a woman, it was because she wasn't the right candidate. Clinton SHOULD have won. It had nothing to do with the fact she was a woman or with American voters not wanting to vote for a woman...it had to do with a combination of Trump's populist horseshit and lefties and minorities staying home and just not voting. You are, IMHO, taking the wrong lessons from Trump's win and trying to conflate them into proving your worldview that the US wouldn't tolerate or doesn't want a woman president.

Quote:
Please notice that there are people in this thread who are attacking me solely on the basis of the quality of my friends, rather than advancing a thoughtful debate as a rebuttal. In Great Debates, no less.
I'm not doing that, and while many would agree my posts aren't very thoughtful I'm trying to use logic and have a rational debate here.
  #47  
Old 08-22-2017, 01:17 PM
Fretful Porpentine is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bohemia. A seacoast.
Posts: 6,424
Sadly, I think there is a lot of truth to this, although I also believe that it's possible for a female candidate to win -- she would just have to be the female equivalent of Barack Obama, completely scandal-free and with rockstar levels of charisma, in order to be evenly matched against an average male nominee. (Similarly, Hillary Clinton, an average nominee, was more-or-less evenly matched against an exceptionally poor one.)
  #48  
Old 08-22-2017, 01:19 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,058
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.
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.
  #49  
Old 08-22-2017, 01:20 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Exactly...in the few times that a woman has run for president in the US she was never the right candidate. Wasn't because she was a woman, it was because she wasn't the right candidate. Clinton SHOULD have won. It had nothing to do with the fact she was a woman or with American voters not wanting to vote for a woman...it had to do with a combination of Trump's populist horseshit and lefties and minorities staying home and just not voting. You are, IMHO, taking the wrong lessons from Trump's win and trying to conflate them into proving your worldview that the US wouldn't tolerate or doesn't want a woman president.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I'm not doing that, and while many would agree my posts aren't very thoughtful I'm trying to use logic and have a rational debate here.
No, you're not. I appreciate that, and I'm sorry if you felt the comment was directed at you. It wasn't. I've enjoyed our discussion.
  #50  
Old 08-22-2017, 01:23 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 83,293
I think the right female candidate could certainly be elected President, but Hillary's decades worth of political baggage, accumulated bile against her among the vast majority of Republicans, poor campaigning skills, and self-inflicted wounds such as her private email server while SecState (why anyone who made it through the Ken Starr investigation thought that was a good idea is beyond me) put the White House out of reach for her.

I do remember a report on Gallup's polling as to a female President, though, a decade or so ago. No matter how encouragingly the question was phrased ("Would you support a qualified woman of your own party, with whose views you largely agreed, for President?"), there was, I think, a 10-15% chunk of the electorate who would not support a female candidate, no way, no how. Some people still have a Daddy-knows-best view of the Presidency, and that's quite an obstacle before any woman even begins to run.
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 08:23 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