• 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 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

VendettaRed07

Member
brainchild said:
So am I, and emphasizing that point does nothing to change the validity of my argument. Not even one iota.
Click to expand...
People do not like women with ambition. Female politicians struggle with this because the balancing act of how to present themselves while being able to get votes is difficult.

A female politician could not be Trump or Bernie sanders.

Or, They could, but they wouldn't go anywhere or be able to win anything or get the type of support both have gotten.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
This is absolutely a fair point, and a perfect example of how Hillary doesn't have the freedom to be loose and idiosyncratic, whereas someone like Bernie does.
Click to expand...

Even if she did have the freedom, she wouldn't necessarily wag her figure. It's not a good look for any politician. Why do you think that O'Malley took the textbook approach to mannerisms? After all, as a man, he should have been able to carry himself however he pleased, right?

Unfortunately, there may be some conflation between what's unacceptable for a female politician and what's unacceptable for any politician.

The truth is that Bernie's optics are terrible, period. They'd be terrible for a woman running for president (even moreso) and they'd be terrible for a man running for president.

There's a reason that no other candidate (besides Trump) physically presents themselves as poorly as Bernie does. But that's also part of his appeal.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
danm999 said:
I think she described herself as a human Rorschach test which from where I'm standing is proving to be pretty insightful at the moment.
Click to expand...

It's true.

Prost said:
Trump is the sign of authenticity? Mr. flip flopper himself? The guy that even has a conspiracy that Bill Clinton asked him to run as a RINO to destroy the repubs from within? Come on.
Click to expand...

As weird / flip-floppy as it is, the GOP voters are flocking to Trump due to authenticity. Which is an interesting point, seeing as someone who changes policy all the time manages to capture the authenticity vote. Interesting, isn't it? Almost makes one think that policy and authenticity aren't necessarily 1:1 in many voters eyes. :)

Christie almost took out Rubio due to in-authenticity, even from one male to another.

I think many folks (including folks in this thread) have an outdated view of the primary electorate, to be honest. I think that is what is hurting HRC. Just my opinion.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Voters are flocking to Trump because he's a fucking racist asshole and they like that.

Trump is pretending to be religious about as poorly as any politician ever has, highly doubtful he's being viewed as authentic.
 
J

Jenov

Member
Cybit said:
It's true.



As weird / flip-floppy as it is, the GOP voters are flocking to Trump due to authenticity. Which is an interesting point, seeing as someone who changes policy all the time manages to capture the authenticity vote. Interesting, isn't it? Almost makes one think that policy and authenticity aren't necessarily 1:1 in many voters eyes. :)

Christie almost took out Rubio due to in-authenticity, even from one male to another.

I think many folks (including folks in this thread) have an outdated view of the primary electorate, to be honest. I think that is what is hurting HRC. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

They're flocking more for his anti-establishment, racist, anti-immigrant, gung-ho America rhetoric. I haven't gotten any sense that it's because they think he's some super stand up, authentic guy... Are there even polls on that?

Edit: Even his hair is the butt of jokes because of how unauthentic people think it is, lol

ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Voters are flocking to Trump because he's a fucking racist asshole and they like that.

Trump is pretending to be religious about as poorly as any politician ever has, highly doubtful he's being viewed as authentic.
Click to expand...

2 Corinthians!
 
S

Snowman Prophet of Doom

Member
brainchild, your arguments are very odd. I'm basically in agreement with you on the inefficacy of Clinton's use of her womanhood in the campaign, but I don't begrudge her not being some kind of unflinching force of personality. My issue is with her overall lack of vision and inability to integrate the various parts of her platform into a cohesive, attractive whole, not with the very real necessity that women who want to get anywhere face of having to straddle public life very uncomfortably. She's had years since leaving the State Department to craft a campaign strategy, but she's facing a decent challenge in the freakin' primaries from a guy with untenable plans, middling speaking skills, and who self-identifies as a basically irreligious socialist. My criticism of her talking up being a woman is an extension of that, because every part of her campaign comes across as awkward, disjointed, and vision-less. She's hangin' out in Cedar Rapids, she's like your abuela, she's not part of the political establishment because she's a woman, she'll be like a third Obama term but different because she's a woman, etc. "There should be a woman president" is a fine, respectable sentiment that people have every right to champion, but it rings hollowly because she has not constructed a strong campaign to hang that message on. It's a quality ornament hanging off a Charlie Brown tree.
 
D

danm999

Member
Macho Madness said:
?

1369949609000-jeb-bush-001.jpg


He lost weight before starting his campaign.
Click to expand...

Wow hadn't seen many photos of him pre-2015. He looks way slimmer.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Brawndo Addict said:
The default starting position for an 'objective' argument is not the negative position. It's the unknown position. Failing to prove a positive doesn't mean the negative is true.
Click to expand...

My starting position was one of negation. I didn't start the argument.

VendettaRed07 said:
People do not like women with ambition. Female politicians struggle with this because the balancing act of how to present themselves while being able to get votes is difficult.

A female politician could not be Trump or Bernie sanders.

Or, They could, but they wouldn't go anywhere or be able to win anything or get the type of support both have gotten.
Click to expand...

A female politician needn't be Trump or Bernie to be sincere.

It remains to be seen if their unconventional oratory skills will benefit them in the long run.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
I guess on the topic of coherent message, the new line seems to be the closest she's come so far. It grapples with her issues "laundry list" problem, something her staffers had initially wanted to dampen, covering a breadth of issues from a variety of angles is then painted as a strength. "Breaking down all the barriers" also probably sufficiently highlights that her nomination and presidency would be historic, despite it actually being directed at her potential constituents' problems.

Big fat mess.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Ultimately, though, voters can only pick from the candidates that are on the ballot, and nobody wanted to spend their political capital facing Hillary knowing the DNC was firmly behind her candidacy. While it's true that more debates probably wouldn't have helped Sanders, the Sanders supporters were nevertheless correct in point out that, structurally, limited debates at odd times DO help whoever is the candidate with the biggest profile going in. The establishment is not all-powerful, but the Dem establishment has not collapsed nearly as much as the GOP, and it was their choice to basically openly go all-in on a single horse with a lot of baggage on its back.
Click to expand...

We can certainly agree that the DNC's plan to basically hide the debates to prevent any non-Clinton candidate from getting any exposure was short-sighted and self defeating. Beyond that I think you're over estimating the degree to which other candidates, male or female, were pushed out of the race by the establishment. By all accounts, there was a very active movement to draft Warren by many prominent liberals, including some big early Obama supporters. In then end, Warren and others wanted to keep Clinton strong going into the general when she would be facing a well funded Republican like Rubio or Bush. Which is pretty funny to say right now.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
brainchild, your arguments are very odd. I'm basically in agreement with you on the inefficacy of Clinton's use of her womanhood in the campaign, but I don't begrudge her not being some kind of unflinching force of personality. My issue is with her overall lack of vision and inability to integrate the various parts of her platform into a cohesive, attractive whole, not with the very real necessity that women who want to get anywhere face of having to straddle public life very uncomfortably. She's had years since leaving the State Department to craft a campaign strategy, but she's facing a decent challenge in the freakin' primaries from a guy with untenable plans, middling speaking skills, and who self-identifies as a basically irreligious socialist. My criticism of her talking up being a woman is an extension of that, because every part of her campaign comes across as awkward, disjointed, and vision-less. She's hangin' out in Cedar Rapids, she's like your abuela, she's not part of the political establishment because she's a woman, she'll be like a third Obama term but different because she's a woman, etc. "There should be a woman president" is a fine, respectable sentiment that people have every right to champion, but it rings hollowly because she has not constructed a strong campaign to hang that message on. It's a quality ornament hanging off a Charlie Brown tree.
Click to expand...

We're in agreement. My point as of now has to do with if she has to (or more importantly, do any women running for president have to) take the approach that she has. As difficult as it may be, Hillary Clinton is certainly capable of presenting herself more sincerely while still being successful, as are other women running for president.
 
D

disastermouse

Banned
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
This is absolutely a fair point, and a perfect example of how Hillary doesn't have the freedom to be loose and idiosyncratic, whereas someone like Bernie does. I never have nor would deny that such constrictions exist. But even knowing this, and actively adjusting for it in my internal calculations, I still find her very uninspiring as a candidate.
Click to expand...
I don't know if this is true. Lots of men are as stilted or even more stilted than Hillary, presumably because they feel that they have to be. Romney was as plastic as a manikin.

Hillary reminds me of the soulless middle manager the likes of which I have to deal with in my hospital job. The men are smarmy and the women tend to be humorless. Personally, I think it's an easy trap to get into because people ARE more likely to walk all over a woman who isn't tough, whereas there's an implicit, culturally enforced idea already in our minds that 'men are to be listened to'. Unfortunately, the humorless solution is an almost universally unlikable one.

I do meet women with power who avoid being humorless and are served by it, by I think it's difficult and I don't envy having to navigate that environment.
 
J

Jenov

Member
brainchild said:
My starting position was one of negation. I didn't start the argument.



A female politician needn't be Trump or Bernie to be sincere.

It remains to be seen if their unconventional oratory skills will benefit them in the long run.
Click to expand...

Did Vermont get called so hard that we got pulled into a alternative dimension where Trump and 'Sincere' and 'Authentic' are words attributed to him?
 
I

Iolo

Member
Makai said:
Is this a real picture of Jeb?

Jeb-Bush2.jpg
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't real when it was posted in OT2 or whatever either.

edit: wtf I was a page behind

Ok, so I don't waste this post. Maybe the lack of women in the Democratic Party at the presidential level is not due to lack of "grooming" by the DNC but because it's really fucking hard to become president and Hillary is the only one that made it this far.
 
K

kess

Member
Gov. Paul LePage says asylum seekers are bringing AIDS and 'ziki fly' to Maine

Asylum seekers — I think the biggest problem in our state — and I’ll explain that to you,” LePage said, according to Maine’s MPBN News, as the crowd at a town hall began to chant “shame, shame.”

But the Republican governor, who has a history of making controversial statements, was undeterred. Those seeking asylum don’t get medical assessments and risk bringing foreign diseases, LePage said. “And what happens is you get hepatitis C, tuberculosis, AIDS, HIV, the ‘ziki fly’ [sic] all these other foreign type of diseases that find a way to our land,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
R

royalan

Member
Not to disrupt this amazing back-and-forth, but can we talk about the Hillary Victory Fund real quick? I have my own thoughts, but I want to make sure I have a correct understanding of it.

To my understanding, Hillary Clinton is doing a lot to support other democrats through this fund. I see a lot of posts about establishment dems only supporting Hillary because she's establishment, but couldn't the support also come from the fact that Hillary, well, does a lot to support other democrats running for office? Are there any other politicians who have matched Hillary's efforts on this level? Has Bernie done anything similar?
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Prost said:
Did Vermont get called so hard that we got pulled into a alternative dimension where Trump and 'Sincere' and 'Authentic' are words attributed to him?
Click to expand...

Whether those attributes are accurate or not, he comes across that way when he speaks. Call him a masterful con-man if you please, but he's certainly doing a better job at seeming sincere than any other candidate in the GOP.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
royalan said:
Not to disrupt this amazing back-and-forth, but can we talk about the Hillary Victory Fund real quick? I have my own thoughts, but I want to make sure I have a correct understanding of it.

To my understanding, Hillary Clinton is doing a lot to support other democrats through this fund. I see a lot of posts about establishment dems only supporting Hillary because she's establishment, but couldn't the support also come from the fact that Hillary, well, does a lot to support other democrats running for office? Are their any other politicians who have matched Hillary's efforts on this level? Has Bernie done anything similar?
Click to expand...

Bernie has the funding agreements in place, but he has yet to raise a dollar for down ballot people. (Unless that has changed recently and I wasn't aware of it.) Hillary's support among the establishment is, in part, because she's an actual democrat. Bernie is not, for better or worse. This was one of my big things against Bernie at the beginning, and the actions of his campaign have only made this a bigger issue for me. Hillary has been out there working to elect Democrats. Bernie has not. I agree. It's only natural that the party prefer her.

Anyone going to be out calling or volunteering this weekend? I'm going to be doing something on Sunday with the local democrats. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I'll be doing it. I'm also going to phone bank one at least once before SC. I just need to figure out when.
 
V

vicissitudes

Banned
It makes sense that Bernie is way ahead in Vermont. Everyone knows Vermont is a super cool state. Not lame, backward states like South Carolina and Arkansas.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
adam387 said:
Bernie has the funding agreements in place, but he has yet to raise a dollar for down ballot people. (Unless that has changed recently and I wasn't aware of it.) Hillary's support among the establishment is, in part, because she's an actual democrat. Bernie is not, for better or worse. This was one of my big things against Bernie at the beginning, and the actions of his campaign have only made this a bigger issue for me. Hillary has been out there working to elect Democrats. Bernie has not. I agree. It's only natural that the party prefer her.

Anyone going to be out calling or volunteering this weekend? I'm going to be doing something on Sunday with the local democrats. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I'll be doing it. I'm also going to phone bank one at least once before SC. I just need to figure out when.
Click to expand...

I'll do more in the general.

I've phonebanked a few times at the Brooklyn HQ but I don't have the time...
 
S

Snowman Prophet of Doom

Member
royalan said:
Not to disrupt this amazing back-and-forth, but can we talk about the Hillary Victory Fund real quick? I have my own thoughts, but I want to make sure I have a correct understanding of it.

To my understanding, Hillary Clinton is doing a lot to support other democrats through this fund. I see a lot of posts about establishment dems only supporting Hillary because she's establishment, but couldn't the support also come from the fact that Hillary, well, does a lot to support other democrats running for office? Are there any other politicians who have matched Hillary's efforts on this level? Has Bernie done anything similar?
Click to expand...

I think Bernie's plan for electing downticket Democrats is just to be really, really awesome. Not sure why Dems aren't getting on board with that, seems solid enough to me.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Ultimately, though, voters can only pick from the candidates that are on the ballot, and nobody wanted to spend their political capital facing Hillary knowing the DNC was firmly behind her candidacy. While it's true that more debates probably wouldn't have helped Sanders, the Sanders supporters were nevertheless correct in point out that, structurally, limited debates at odd times DO help whoever is the candidate with the biggest profile going in. The establishment is not all-powerful, but the Dem establishment has not collapsed nearly as much as the GOP, and it was their choice to basically openly go all-in on a single horse with a lot of baggage on its back.
Click to expand...

It's less the DNC and more her own web of relationships. If you were to start naming people who could have conceivably run this cycle, they're all pretty tight with Hillary. Combine that with the sheer weight of her candidacy and Obama's tacit endorsement, and it makes sense that no one in the party would bother. The DNC deserves to get shit on a lot, but this is more people not wanting to challenge an ally to a fight they would most certainly lose.
 
K

Kyosaiga

Banned
So, am I the only one who thinks that Fox News is nowhere even close to as bad as they were in Obama's first term? While obviously still biased and they some really dumb shit (like Andrea Tantaros thinking that Obama had an onion under the podium when he shed tears for Sandy Hook victims), I still don't see the batshit craziness that was the 2009-2012 period.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
Kyosaiga said:
So, am I the only one who thinks that Fox News is nowhere even close to as bad as they were in Obama's first term? While obviously still biased and they some really dumb shit (like Andrea Tantaros thinking that Obama had an onion under the podium when he shed tears for Sandy Hook victims), I still don't see the batshit craziness that was the 2009-2012 period.
Click to expand...

It is still terrible. I think they have their sights trained on Hillary and thus give Obama the "LOL he's a lame duck socialist" treatment. Hillary gets her own segment on literally every single Special Report with Bret Baier (I know because family watches it and I get sucked in) with both Jennifer Griffin and Ed Henry doing a daily report concerning either her failure in the campaign or her email scandal. And that is Fox's most "respectable" news show. The degree of offhand comments and dismissive tone on almost all of their programming concerning the Dems is astounding.

Make no mistake, they are still batshit insane and horrifically biased.
 
O

OrangeGrayBlue

Member
Kyosaiga said:
So, am I the only one who thinks that Fox News is nowhere even close to as bad as they were in Obama's first term? While obviously still biased and they some really dumb shit (like Andrea Tantaros thinking that Obama had an onion under the podium when he shed tears for Sandy Hook victims), I still don't see the batshit craziness that was the 2009-2012 period.
Click to expand...

I think it's just that the republican party has caught up to and surpassed fox news. And in the case of places like The Blaze, there are media outlets that outflank fox news on the right.

I'd say fox news has been consistently nutty.
 
C

CrimzonSamurai

Member
Kyosaiga said:
So, am I the only one who thinks that Fox News is nowhere even close to as bad as they were in Obama's first term? While obviously still biased and they some really dumb shit (like Andrea Tantaros thinking that Obama had an onion under the podium when he shed tears for Sandy Hook victims), I still don't see the batshit craziness that was the 2009-2012 period.
Click to expand...

I feel like Roger Ailes' very public backhanding by his former drinking buddy Donald might have actually shocked them into behaving more like a grown up TV news network. I mean, for Fox News, their defense and promotion of Megyn Kelly in the face of their former daily call-in guest's assault has been almost admirable.
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
Not sure I'd call Warren a good politician either but she certainly doesn't have the authenticity issues that plague Clinton. She's generally viewed as honest and has some accomplishments she can point to, which arguably is not the case with Clinton.

While I don't believe Warren is a viable national candidate the thing I love about her is that she effortlessly explains complex issues in the simplest language. It's a teacher trait that a lot of people, including Obama, do not possess.
 
D

danm999

Member
Kyosaiga said:
So, am I the only one who thinks that Fox News is nowhere even close to as bad as they were in Obama's first term? While obviously still biased and they some really dumb shit (like Andrea Tantaros thinking that Obama had an onion under the podium when he shed tears for Sandy Hook victims), I still don't see the batshit craziness that was the 2009-2012 period.
Click to expand...

They've just been lapped by the nutbags running for POTUS.
 
R

royalan

Member
adam387 said:
Bernie has the funding agreements in place, but he has yet to raise a dollar for down ballot people. (Unless that has changed recently and I wasn't aware of it.) Hillary's support among the establishment is, in part, because she's an actual democrat. Bernie is not, for better or worse. This was one of my big things against Bernie at the beginning, and the actions of his campaign have only made this a bigger issue for me. Hillary has been out there working to elect Democrats. Bernie has not. I agree. It's only natural that the party prefer her.

Anyone going to be out calling or volunteering this weekend? I'm going to be doing something on Sunday with the local democrats. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I'll be doing it. I'm also going to phone bank one at least once before SC. I just need to figure out when.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Pretty much what my thinking was, but I couldn't think off the top of my head if Bernie Sanders or anyone else had done something similar.

I don't understand how someone could be so dismissive of a party and then turn around and expect their support.
 
R

Retromelon

Member
Andrea tantaros is the worst television personality of all time. Every time juan williams tries to say anything, she arches her eyebrow and puts on her well practiced look of disgust like she's hearing the most pinko commie drivel. "Really, juan? Is the sky blue?Really?" its like sean hannity crossed with your pissy ex gf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2 3
115
12K
LavitzSlambert replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
54K
Topher replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
62K
DGrayson replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2022 Edition
3 4 5 6 7
333
78K
zephiross replied
Top Bottom