…you did a bit more than just “pointing something out.” And all you are pointing out is your **perception **of Warren’s voice. You think it sounds like she is going to cry. You think it sounds weak. And grating. Its what you hear. But these aren’t objective standards.
You’ve made the case that her voice is a major liability for her campaign. You’ve argued that she should be “working like hell” to fix her voice. You think that fixing her voice would improve her chances. But you haven’t demonstrated any of these things. You can’t quantify your opinion.
The issue I pointed out was that Warren’s front-runner status is what’s occasioning the complaints about her voice. We didn’t see impassioned posts about problems with her voice before she was the front-runner, and we don’t----yet----see impassioned posts about problems with the voices of other women in the race. If any of them become the front-runner, that is likely to change.
Your “you should know that” remark does not fit this sub-forum, unless I’ve misunderstood the rules. If a moderator would be kind enough to clarify, I’d be grateful. (It doesn’t rise to the level of my personally contacting them, I don’t think.) Your remark also demonstrates that you’ve missed the point: our complainers were not criticizing Warren’s voice when they saw no chance that she might, within a few months, become President. And they are not criticizing the voices of the other women who currently, have very low chances of becoming President.
The irritation with a female voice is directly correlated with the odds that the owner of that voice might gain a position of power “over” the complainers. (Power over the complainers being largely symbolic in the case of a President unless the complainer actually works in government, really.)
Examples of the complaints are quoted here:
Me, neither. (And you posted a nicely-succinct way of disposing of the ‘irritating voice’ issue.)
I can only speak for myself but just for the record, I have been criticizing the voices, body language, and various other mannerisms of the following candidates since the very beginning of this primary:
Whether on this board or on other places, I have voiced my distaste for all of these peoples’ style of speaking and otherwise presenting their ideas. Not their ideas themselves, mind you - just the way they come off when they talk, look at their audience, etc, because to me that represents their chances of being able to win, which is the ONLY thing that I care about at this point.
Those who would say, “well, whatever they sound like, they’re still better speakers than Trump” have, in my opinion, not been paying attention to Trump. Yes, he speaks inarticulately, he goes off on tangents and has a stream of consciousness delivery and speaks in facile superlatives all the time. But he’s also an absolute master of playing off of his audience, reading the crowd, throwing in little one-on-one interactions and shout-outs to individual audience members, making the crowd laugh, and generally making his audience feel like they have a personal connection to him.
It’s my firm belief that this decidedly unique and non-politician-like style of campaigning is more responsible for his victory than any other single thing about him. Because I look at politics through the eyes of Don Draper, not Mr. Spock.
…Mr Spock would point out that the 2016 was mired with interference from Russia, it would point out the active voter suppression that purged thousands from the rolls and kept many others away on polling day, it would point out the surge in propaganda and bots that were micro-targeted using methods and the same people that helped make Brexit a thing.
I would think that even Don Draper would be onboard with the idea that we focus more on getting people out to vote than we do on “fixing Warren’s voice.” Because it wasn’t the “decidedly unique and non-politician-like style of campaigning” that was responsible for Trumps victory. It was because they used every dirty trick out of the bag that they could. And the Dems were simply unprepared for it. Things are going to be worse in 2020. Facebook have started a “news service” that, believe it or not, features Breitbart. America is already facing a deluge of propaganda from the current administration. And it will be getting worse.
“Fixing Warren’s voice” (and there is nothing to fix) ain’t gonna change a single thing at the next election.
…except that they aren’t. The last point is talking about things like this. Not Russia.
Mr Spock would have no doubt the middle thing is going to happen again and the Dems should consider this one of their highest priorities going into the next election. Not fixing Warren’s voice. (If she is the nominee)
I acknowledge he’s a great carnival barker. But that doesn’t mean his “decidedly unique and non-politician-like style of campaigning is more responsible for his victory than” all the other things that were responsible for his victory. I’m not pushing back on something that “looks like a compliment.” I’m calling it as I see it.
So as I mentioned in another thread we have several candidates proposing policies that range from very likely to unquestionably unconstitutional under current law and that would require a Constitutional Amendment to be implemented. With Sen. Warren you have a former law professor (though not Con Law) advocating for a wealth tax and extending the Judicial Code of Conduct to SCOTUS. Under current Constitutional law a Federal wealth tax that taxed the ownership of Real or Personal Property would need to be Apportioned amongst the states. Pretty much making it a non-starter in practice. And while the Federal Judiciary is a creation of statute, SCOTUS is a creation of the Constitution and a co-equal branch (and not insignificantly, the very body that would ultimately decide such a question). And while I may have missed it, I have seen no mention by Sen. Warren of a proposed Constitutional Amendment connected to either proposal and so it is presumed that the intention is to impose the policy via statute.
So the question, especially in regards to Sen. Warren, is are these candidates so ignorant and/or biased that they believe that these policy proposals would pass Constitutional muster? Or is it the only other real possibility, that they know that these policies have next to no chance of being implemented for this very reason and, as far as I have seen, are omitting that information and counting on low-information voters to not know any better?
(Sen. Sanders gets a partial pass in this regard since he seems to at least acknowledge that eliminating Corporate Personhood would likely take an Amendment. However, he also doesn’t seem to fully grasp the concept or the implications of its elimination and it remains a massively stupid idea with way too much appeal among low-information voters. And like Sen. Warren, he also seemingly endorses a clearly unconstitutional wealth tax.)
The U.S., in its entirety, currently spends about $3.5 trillion on health care.
There may be some website that looks at Warren’s financial figures with some nuance. But if they couldn’t figure out to subtract off $3.5 trillion, then Yahoo ain’t it.
Have you read my direct quotes from the Court’s decision in * Sebelius * in the GD thread yet? If so, do you have a way of reasonably reconciling that holding with the proposed wealth tax? And how exactly does Sen. Warren’s experience as a specialist in Bankruptcy Law, or even Commercial Law more generally, make her an expert in Constitutional Law? You do realize those are different areas of jurisprudence and specialization right? I mean it’s right there in the respective categorizations. And given that and given that you know nothing about my own qualifications how can you possibly logically deduce that she probably has a superior level of qualifications/ knowledge than I do? Another desperate swing and a whiff on your part. The latest of many.
I’ve specialized to a significant degree in Constitutional Law. What was your area of legal expertise again?
And the real take away here is that according to SCOTUS I’m right and Senators Warren and Sanders are wrong (assuming they both view their proposed wealth tax as Constitutional under current law and they’ve given no indication otherwise as far as I know).
Well, until someone cites a real lawyer with name attached, I’m going to go with the actual Constitutional expert who penned the ABA article. Thanks though.
Studies have pointed to racial resentment more than anything else. There’s never just one reason, but often a mix of many. However, the racial resentment theme seems to be backed up by a lot of studies from different entities.
As for “dirty tricks”, have their been any studies that show that it was important or decisive? I haven’t seen any.