If you thought it was important enough to post, it was important enough to quote. You didn’t because you couldn’t be bothered to listen to it again, so I did the research, and I listened to the podcast and took notes. And I said in my post that McCaskill had been called out on this crap and why. You seem to think because a Democratic woman said this stuff, it’s some kind of gotcha. It’s not.
You do understand that I, like McCaskill, desperately want Democrats to retake the Senate? I have been sending every spare dime to ActBlue for various competitive Senate races (along with some to repay felons’ fines in Florida so they can vote, plus some for Biden although I’m tapering off with that as I think he’s pretty flush).
^this. And last time I checked locally in Arizona, The Republican senator, Mcsally is way under the Democrat Kelly in the polls, in big part because she supports Trump and his supreme court nominee.
Okay, starting at 44:23. I’m leaving out “uh”, “um”, etc., as well as when people kind of stammer and repeat the same word or series of words twice in a row.
I think the expectations are too high, for Kamala, I would agree, because she did well in the debates when she was running for president, and she can handle herself. She actually is a real courtroom prosecutor–most federal prosecutors really aren’t. I mean, but she actually went in the courtroom; and when you’re in a courtroom, there’s no script. You have to think on your feet. You have to react to what happens.
So she’ll do fine–and I’ll get killed for this, I’ll get murdered for this, but there is a reality about women debating, and you can’t escape it. [David Axelrod, the mastermind behind Obama’s two wins, the only Democrat since FDR to win a majority of the popular vote twice, interjects here, vehemently: “Yeah, absolutely!”] I’m not saying it’s right, I’m not saying I agree with it, but you’ve got to end the debate being likable. [Cohost Mike Murphy, who has won his share of races, interjects “Yup.”] I’ve won some debates that I lost, because I was so busy showing that I knew more, and making my points, that I forgot to show people that, you know, I felt them, I understood them, that I was like them, that I related to them. And so she’s got to really be careful and make sure she shows the warm, empathetic side of her. And if she does that, she’ll win the debate, because she’s got the facts on her side.
So how was it an inaccurate paraphrase on my part to say women “pay a political price in debates if they are seen as too aggressive and cutthroat"? Looks spot on to me.
Now, Harris did have the facts on her side, and she didn’t do too badly. It was a net win for Biden-Harris because Trump-Pence are way behind. But I do get nervous about her as a 2024 frontrunner. She did at best a wobbly job of following this advice. Who is the person who was not already a true blue member of the #resistance who thrilled to her basically wagging her finger at Pence and admonishing him “I’m speaking”? I understand that it feels good to see her put him in his place, but that’s not good politics.
I can think of three female senators from the Upper Midwest who are much better at this: my senators Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, and maybe most of all Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin (who I thought would have been an ideal choice for running mate). It is worth noting that we have made a lot of progress as a country when an out lesbian fits that bill for a pragmatic Democratic “hack” like me. I have been on a quest for many years now to back Democrats I thought had the chops to checkmate Republicans in purple and slightly red states, but if you asked me fifteen years ago, I would have absolutely ruled out a progressive lesbian in this category. I was looking for straight white guys with centrist records from the South and Mountain West, ideally with military backgrounds (I was one of those really excited about Wesley Clark, for instance). That’s progress!
But getting back to Harris, it’s not her gender that’s the problem, nor is it–as my wife complained–that I’m looking for candidates who act “submissive”. What I want is plainspoken “heartland” types that people can imagine living in their “flyover country” hometowns, sitting around a kitchen table with corny knicknacks and crocheted “inspirational” kitschy art on the walls (“Home Sweet Home” with no irony, “Blonde Jesus”, etc.). And Harris is not like that at all. She comes across as very imperious, the epitome of a condescending “coastal elite”. Don’t get me wrong: I am simpatico with coastal elites–my tastes in music, cinema, TV, and reading material line up very well with them–but in national politics, that’s not who we need to appeal to.
Because “being likable” is not the same as “too aggressive and cutthroat.” “Shows the warm, empathetic side” is not the same as “too aggressive and cutthroat.” And as I said, McCaskill has been called out on her stance that women in politics should be “self-effacing.”
Mrs Thatcher, Benezir Bhutto, Angela Merkel, all seemed to do just fine.
What I have seen is that many did not see that as bad politics.
Sure, some conservatives complained, but most women related to that.
What I don’t get is why this citing other people is supposed to convince anyone of anything. So McCaskill said it. She may even believe it. It doesn’t make her right.
You want to argue she is right, then you need examples of what she’s saying being true. Not just telling people “you should listen to this woman who I personally agree with.” Why? She’s not special. She’s not even in office–she lost to a Republican man.
(And, note, I’m not saying she lost because of her ideas, either. Just that she could have. You have to show the idea has merit, not the person.)
that too. Very underwhelming OP.
Claire McCaskill and David Axelrod have proven their political expertise at winning over voters in tough states. Again, Obama is the first candidate since Eisenhower to win more than 50% of the popular vote twice. And McCaskill not only did 13 points better in 2018 than Hillary did in 2016, she was on the very same ballot as Obama in 2012 and ran 25 points ahead of him! These people know what they are doing. The ones whose political advice should be taken with a grain of salt are people like AOC, Warren, and Harris, who have shown the ability to navigate Democratic primaries but have never had to win over swing voters in a general election. And what we need as a party is the latter, if we are going to take control of the government.
Where does that verify "We aren’t going to stop Mitch McConnell from ramming through Amy Coney Barrett if he has the votes, but swarming the Capitol with Handmaid costumes might sabotage attempts to win back the Senate, so we need to keep our eyes on the ball. "
And “got to end the debate being likable.” is indeed a far cry from “pay a political price in debates if they are seen as too aggressive and cutthroat"
Again, 2018 showed otherwise, a lot came from not being prepared against leaks and underhanded Project Veritas “exposes” and not caring enough about the black vote and other liberal ideas that helped on the blue wave then. She cared too much on the Republican views or
‘corny knickknacks and crocheting’. 
GIGO, we had a test of this theory by progressives that going to the left is the way to win contested races. In Florida, the progressive Senate candidate lost despite the blue wave across the country, and Florida being much bluer than Missouri. And in dozens of House races, the candidates endorsed and funded by Bernie and AOC were unable to defeat Republican incumbents, again despite this blue wave. Not a single one of the “Justice Dems” flipped a seat, while dozens of seats were flipped by centrist and conservative Democrats backed by the DNC.
Progressives love to cling to this fantasy that their kind of politics can appeal to swing voters or bring out enough nonvoters to make the difference. But it never works. They need to stick to primary challenges in deep blue districts like AOC did, and let the people who know how to win over moderate Republicans (like McCaskill, and Amy Klobuchar, and Steve Bullock), handle national strategy.
That was from a different part of the podcast which the person I was responding to did not dispute so I did not search for that. And I’m not going to. I have listened to it enough times, but I assure you she made it very clear that she is beseeching feminists not to go there. Which is all the more important now that the polling has shifted in favor of confirming Barrett.
Pffft. 
Are you really unable to see the accuracy of the paraphrase, or are you just willfully refusing to acknowledge it? “I’ve won some debates that I lost, because I was so busy showing that I knew more, and making my points, that I forgot to show people that, you know, I felt them, I understood them, that I was like them, that I related to them.” Sure sounds like paying a political price in debates by being seen as too aggressive and cutthroat. If she were only making that much milder point that you were trying to characterize it as, she wouldn’t have emphasized how she was going to get “murdered” for saying it.
The logical flaw is that in 2018 there were more than judges that showed that it does not work like you say, nor did I say that it should work all the time; that was you saying it not me. In reality you are going for an excluded middle fallacy. If you were correct at the level you are implying there then McCaskill should had won. Since you insist that going to left never works you are here insisting then that the opposite always works… uh, not the case as she is not the senator now. Again, yours is still a very underwhelming OP.
The one I’m alluding to - just so we’re on the same page - is that her political instincts aren’t as good as you’re making them out to be. I get that winning in MO is going to be tough a Democrat. There’s a significant red-state headwind. But it can be done by a strong candidate with good political skills. Manchin and Tester are Senators I might actually listen to about how to win in red states. McCaskill, Heitkamp, and (Doug) Jones, not so much.
[quote=“SlackerInc, post:30, topic:922445, full:true”]
Again, Obama is the first candidate since Eisenhower to win more than 50% of the popular vote twice. [/quote]
Nitpick: Reagan did it too. But yeah Obama was the first Democrat since FDR to do it and before him the only other Democrat was Andrew Jackson.
As to your larger point, McCaskill is probably right but it will likely be ignored by activists who have their own incentives in terms of attracting attention and raising money. Right-wing activists also do things which hurt the GOP sometimes. That is the price of having activists in your coalition.
…but its over to you to quantify how much drag (if any) you think swarming the Capitol with Handmaid costumes is going to cause. Because it isn’t enough to simply make the claim that its going to be a problem. How is it problematic? And how are you going to police it? Are you planning on wagging your finger loudly? Start a thread on a messageboard and hope that they read it?
Because what you want to happen isn’t going to happen. People are going to do what they want to do. If you weigh up the impact of a handful of protestors swarming the Capitol with Handmaid costumes to the already huge numbers of people who have already gone out and voted, or the significant efforts by the Republican party to supress the vote I would suggest the Handmaids are gonna have a negligible impact on the next election compared to the other two.
But if you’ve got some numbers to suggest otherwise then feel free to present them.
I can’t figure out why people think this is meaningful. Why didn’t Nixon win majority popular vote twice? Because George Wallace also ran, and skimmed 13.5% of the vote away from the major party candidates. Why didn’t Clinton? Same thing, but with Perot. I don’t think you can make a data-driven argument that either of them would have lost without the third-party challengers (unlike Bush, who almost certainly would have lost in 2000)*, so it tells you less about the candidate and more that a random other event occurred: it was good timing for a 3rd party candidate, and a 3rd party candidate who happened to be relatively strong ran that year.
Yeah, there really is a quite large difference in what you said and what she said. She is saying you can show that you know more, and make your points, but you have to remember to also show you understand people, empathize, and are “like them” and “relate to them.” You paraphrased that as
That’s just wrong. She didn’t say you can’t win the debate “too thoroughly.” Her point is you can’t forget to also be likeable.
I also question just how and why the handmaid costumes are so counterproductive. I doubt they are going to make a difference in either side, but sometimes protestors gotta protest. I mean, it’s so on the nose.
As for your argument about what sort of candidate for VP should have been chosen, Biden is your candidate. There were good reasons for not choosing Klobuchar.
Oh, and yes, I am a Democrat, but I cheered Harris’s “I’m speaking,” as did pretty much any woman who’s ever spoken with a man, except the ones who think interrupting women is men’s god-given right.
How does any of this relate to whether someone is qualified or not to hold political office?