brainchild
Banned
This is some interesting conjecture on her 'strategy', but I'm not buying it. In my opinion, her pushing the woman card smacks of pandering to me. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
This is some interesting conjecture on her 'strategy', but I'm not buying it. In my opinion, her pushing the woman card smacks of pandering to me. Nothing more, nothing less.
Related to Sea Manky's post..
I remain convinced that, as we approach General Election Day, more female voters will become "activated," especially if Hillary continues to present herself as an incredibly competent candidate for President. Debates usually don't shift elections very much, but this is one case where many women want to see it happen, and they're just looking for an excuse to say yes.
This could end-up being especially pronounced among older female voters, who are less friendly to Democratic presidential candidates than younger females - but perhaps more susceptible to the desire to see IT happening in their lifetimes. If that vote shifts a few points, it's going to be difficult for the GOP opponent to overcome.
I remain convinced that, as we approach General Election Day, more female voters will become "activated," especially if Hillary continues to present herself as an incredibly competent candidate for President. Debates usually don't shift elections very much, but this is one case where many women want to see it happen, and they're just looking for an excuse to say yes.
This could end-up being especially pronounced among older female voters, who are less friendly to Democratic presidential candidates than younger females - but perhaps more susceptible to the desire to see IT happening in their lifetimes. If that vote shifts a few points, it's going to be difficult for the GOP opponent to overcome.
There are many who do not have the time nor knowledge to take any sort of class or test. The very poor with much more important issues such as who have to care for a lot of young children, etc....
basically the disadvantaged who are a large part of the dem base who get fucked over by republican policies.
Imagine if Obama did this
who says he doesn't
That's a good idea, a test to ensure a voter's political understanding. We might call it a "literacy test", if you will.
Representative democracy is an incentive structure that compels politicians to represent the interests of diverse demographics. Our problem is that we don't have enough people voting.
Fenderputty
Banned
I know you're just spitballin',but that's highly undemocraric.
I do agree thst I wish more people paid attention to politics though.
brainchild
Banned
Just like many of them take time out of their important and busy schedules to vote, they can arrange time to take classes for an election that takes place every FOUR YEARS.
If they aren't knowledgeable enough to take classes, they shouldn't be allowed to vote, IMO.
That's not exactly how rights work.
And that's just it, they want to know it can happen. They want to be able to show their daughters that it's possible. They want to see the full measure of everything they've had to struggle for since women's suffrage. They deserve it.
You said a long while back something about how women will be the big overlooked story of this election. I think you're absolutely right.
@brainchild, if you haven't caught some of the subtle jokes people are making, you're basically advocating for this:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vaul...t_the_impossible_literacy_test_louisiana.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vaul...t_the_impossible_literacy_test_louisiana.html
I mean, why even bother with classes? We already know that only rich people will be able to afford to have the education you're talking about. Let's just limit the franchise to landowners.
brainchild
Banned
That's exactly what I'm asking for. A literacy test of sorts.
Voter turn out is a huge problem yes. Uneducated votes are also a huge problem.
That may be, but I think it's fair. The fate of our country shouldn't be determined by ignorance.
..........Really
Most certainly.
Your right, but in this case, it's how it should work. Just my personal opinion.
What if we compromised. Say those who fail the test count for 3/5th of a person?
That's such a 1700's attitude. Nowadays you don't have to own land to be rich. Just give every man one vote, plus three fifths of a vote for every employee he has working for him.
Edit: Dammit Konka!
I mean, I hope you're just kidding around, but if not you're arguing for something that was outlawed about 50 years ago because it was used to systematically disenfranchise minorities.
Corporations are people too, and they're very well informed. 75 votes per corporation.
brainchild
Banned
I get the joke, but it's a false equivalency and I fail to see how it's funny.
Because I actually care about them being educated. The classes should be free, as part of their right as a citizen to be able to make an informed and educated vote.
Owning land doesn't guarantee that someone is informed about government. We can be certain that members of the Central Committee are properly educated to choose future members of the Politburo.
Corporations aren't people, that's ridiculous. Money is people. Money should be free to go and do as it wills, and elevate or discard any of the Homo Sapiens factors it owns.
brainchild
Banned
And had you been paying attention to what I've actually been saying then you'd realize that I'm not electing for such a system.
Huge difference in taking time to to vote and taking time to take a class. So a less-educated person who may not have strong reading or writing skills and works long hours at a crummy to support their kids should go take a CLASS?
And your delusional if you think it wouldn't be the end result.
Why even vote though? The person who does the best in these classes and on their exams becomes President, because they are most informed.
Well, to who? Who is buying this "vote for Hillary just because she's a woman" line? Why aren't they excited for Carly Fiorina? I don't understand who you think she's pandering to since the world just doesn't look like we'd expect it to if there were a significant number of voters who don't care at all about policy and just vote based on gender or skin color or whatever. There are low-information voters out there but they're using much better strategies than this. Again, you don't see much black support for Ben Carson and you didn't see much for Herman Cain. IIRC you didn't even see much for Obama until after he started looking like a serious candidate.
The world we actually live in is one where politicians' stories matter in order to make them seem authentic. Every politician ever will have a story that explains their position on some issue or their broader ideology. Obama did this constantly. Roughly two-thirds of what Marco Rubio says is about growing up poor.
The purpose of this is to say "here's where I'm coming from, this is what motivates me, and here's why you can trust that my heart's in the right place". People don't trust politicians and they don't understand policy, so politicians need to get people to trust them when they say that some policy is really the right way to go. Obama found it important to stress the opportunity he'd had in the US as a way to convince people that he didn't hate America, among other things. Republicans in general need to get the electorate to believe that they're cutting taxes in order to help the middle class. This is about communicating a real understanding of the problems voters face - it's "I get it because I was there".
That's most of what Clinton's doing, insofar as it's actually winning votes. Everyone right now is talking about women's issues. Women in particular are concerned about them. Trump promises to take great care of women. Hillary is presenting herself as particularly authentic on women's issues. Why should women trust that she understands the special obstacles they face? Why should women trust that she means it when she says she cares? This is what candidates use personal stories for, and it just so happens that, here, Clinton's can be pretty short. It's not that she's a woman, it's that she's been a woman for 67 years and gets it.
That would be a privilege, not a right.
Having any test, unbiased or not will disenfranchise minorities at a much much wider margin.
A test would be a direct threat to those with a poor education or have no time to take off to go take a class due to needing to work ungodly hours due to being paid near nothing would drastically reduce turnout amongst minorities.
There is no way how I can see the outcome even if everything is perfectly unbiased and the like as you wish this not resulting in a major major drop off many minority groups in voting and ensure Republican dominance.
Quick, get Jeb! on the line. He needs to hear about this.
Retromelon
Member
People that listened to the debate on the radio thought nixon won, because of his stronger voice. But on tv that poor son of a bitch didnt stand a chance
If you wouldn't let this man attend your kid's little league games how are you expected to vote for him
RustyNails
Member
After the politburo is established, we must start keeping an eye on the bourgeois so that the State is not undermined with willful ignorance of "alternative theories".
I've heard this same argument shockingly frequently among people I know - both left and right. I think it stems from a misunderstanding of the purpose of voting. Voters are choosing an advocate, not specific policies. There really is no such thing as an unbiased government or economy.
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm not entirely sure why a female candidate unabashedly saying she has ovaries is supposed to be a bad thing in the first place.
She's shown her support for women's issues and rights over the course of like 30 years of public life. When she says she's a woman, it's with this background. She's a competent - probably the most competent in the field - candidate for President, that just so happens to also be a woman.
But even setting that aside, I don't get why it shouldn't be taken as a positive that she isn't trying to run away from having ladyparts to try and conform to traditional gender expectations and norms about what a "leader" should be, unlike her last campaign.
She's shown her support for women's issues and rights over the course of like 30 years of public life. When she says she's a woman, it's with this background. She's a competent - probably the most competent in the field - candidate for President, that just so happens to also be a woman.
But even setting that aside, I don't get why it shouldn't be taken as a positive that she isn't trying to run away from having ladyparts to try and conform to traditional gender expectations and norms about what a "leader" should be, unlike her last campaign.
I think there's also this sense that the stupid people must be concentrated on the other side, because why else would they keep winning elections?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This idea of "uneducated" voters is disgusting. It's only problem is outcome not education. Its only a desire for thought to be conformed and to say the only reason people come to different decisions is because they're stupid.
Its also a lazy solution, "I can't convince people so I'm just going to choose the people I agree with to vote"
And now we have Ted Cruz, who both looks and sounds creepy.
brainchild
Banned
With something as important as voting? HELL YES. There are lots of things that disadvantaged citizens have to make time for, like long recurring interviews with their county-assisted case workers and doctors appointments. These classes would be on the same level of importance.
In all likelihood, you're right. However, theoretically, it is possible to devise a system that doesn't inevitably result in throwing the disadvantaged under a bus.
But really, the point in all this is that I would like a system that made it necessary for voters to understand what they're voting for and how it affects the country. Obviously, I don't advocate a system that aims to shut out people who are unable to obtain this education, but the two concepts needn't be inextricably linked.
Yeah, but whoever is voting for Hillary because they believe that she gets the female struggle isn't doing so simply because she told them so by saying "I'm a woman". If that was all it took for them to be convinced, then they'd be convinced simply by looking at her.
As for Fiorina, I'd imagine that her odds might have different if she was the only woman running, but if we're going purely off of superficiality, then Hillary appears to be the more presidential of the two. No contest, really.
RustyNails
Member
Timely story, Ben Carson is already proposing turning department of education into a department of thought correction
That's one way to achieve conformity.
brainchild
Banned
This is not at all what I'm saying and if you don't believe that people vote out of ignorance then you have a lot of homework to do.
Retromelon
Member
If ben carson wins the presidency my old hippie professor who says faux news/fox noise every chance he gets is so fucked
Oh, definitely. Many politicians have advanced degrees from Ivy League schools and yet are dismissed as idiots. I'm sure every politician is above average intelligence.
Since we're on the subject of hypothetical voting mechanisms, do you guys think politicians are at risk of automation? Mitt is often compared to a robot, but what if he actually were a robot? Facebook can accurately guess your race and gender by what movies you like. Maybe one day it will know what to say to get your vote.
brainchild
Banned
It should be as much of a right as it is a right to vote. If you have a right to vote, you should have a right to obtain an understanding of what you're voting for, and that may not be possible without some type of educational initiative for some people.
They should be allowed time-off from work for the classes and get extra educational assistance if they need it. In the case that they literally cannot comprehend the concept of politics due to some kind of learning disability, they have no business voting.
User 463088
Banned
I don't really have a problem with someone saying they're voting for Hillary because she's a woman. I'm not saying it's a great reason, but we all have different things that motivate us.
Take me for instance. My dad was a life long Democrat. He was in his late 60s when I was born. The first election he was able to vote in was for FDR in '44. Any time there was an election for anything he voted, and he always made me go with him. Every debate. Every election results. Every convention. He made me watch it. He told me it was important.
In 2007, we watched the first few Dem debates together. After the first few, he looked at me and said "It's Clinton. She's the one. I want to vote for her. It's time we had a woman in the White House." By this time, he was in his 80s, and wasn't able to get around well. He wanted to vote for her so badly. Unfortunately, he passed away before our state's primary, and he never got the chance.
So, while it's silly, a big BIG reason I want to vote for Clinton is for my dad. Ya, it's superficial, it's still part of it. I mean, if she wasn't qualified or wasn't the best choice, then I wouldn't. But, I can't pretend that it;s not part of my decision making process.
Take me for instance. My dad was a life long Democrat. He was in his late 60s when I was born. The first election he was able to vote in was for FDR in '44. Any time there was an election for anything he voted, and he always made me go with him. Every debate. Every election results. Every convention. He made me watch it. He told me it was important.
In 2007, we watched the first few Dem debates together. After the first few, he looked at me and said "It's Clinton. She's the one. I want to vote for her. It's time we had a woman in the White House." By this time, he was in his 80s, and wasn't able to get around well. He wanted to vote for her so badly. Unfortunately, he passed away before our state's primary, and he never got the chance.
So, while it's silly, a big BIG reason I want to vote for Clinton is for my dad. Ya, it's superficial, it's still part of it. I mean, if she wasn't qualified or wasn't the best choice, then I wouldn't. But, I can't pretend that it;s not part of my decision making process.
Abinash117
Member
Why do want something that was outlawed and would clearly be unethical and illegal?
We need a woman in the White House to get a different perspective of certain issues like gender and women's rights. Same reason Obama helped with discussion on race that I think many white presidents would stay clear of.
brainchild
Banned
I don't. I've been pretty clear on what I actually want though.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked