Women still only make up 20% of both houses of congress. This number needs to be 50% and why I think that contrary to what Killer Mike said, Hillary being a woman can and should be considered as a positive reason to vote for her. It is important.
-
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 |OT6| Delete your accounts
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
Women still only make up 20% of both houses of congress. This number needs to be 50% and why I think that contrary to what Killer Mike said, Hillary being a woman can and should be considered as a positive reason to vote for her. It is important.
benjipwns
Banned
I thought Carol Moseley Braun was a more well known disaster.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Hmm, my Chinese girlfriend is liberal and she still cares a fuckton about Taiwan and Tibet (and about them rejoining China).
RastaMentality
Banned
Anecdotal, I know, but I'm on the UC Davis campus and the Taiwanese/Chinese relations stuff still seems as fierce as ever. Everyone may not care about it but Taiwanese people still seem very protective of their national identity.
Today's Trump Apocalypse Watch: A Little Good News in the Polling Department
Last night, Trump agreed on a whim to debate Bernie Sanders, but then backed out. Slate's Jim Newell thinks he would've benefited from such a stunt; personally, I think Trump was smart to back out, because the debate would have been an opportunity for someone with nothing to lose (Bernie) to attack the exact kind of person he's spent his whole career denouncing (Trump) for two hours on national television. But who really knows, in 2016? Actually, one thing we do know is this: Polls have started to veer back in Hillary's direction. This bounceback was predicted by many people who projected confidence about it in public but harbored a secret fear that it would never actually happen and that we would all be eating lizards in a nuclear wasteland a year from now. But it happened. And that's good news! Let's lower the danger level.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
How did a reality TV star who became famous from pretending he was a good businessman become the guy who might turn the world into Mad Max.
I mean, I understand every step, but then you take some steps back and look at the overall picture, and holy fuck, this is just insane.
I mean, I understand every step, but then you take some steps back and look at the overall picture, and holy fuck, this is just insane.
VendettaRed07
Member
I can't believe enoughsandersspam is a place that actually exists on reddit
Chairs fly when you upvote? Lol..
Chairs fly when you upvote? Lol..
benjipwns
Banned
A bounceback can only lead to retroactive momentum for Trump.
Where's metsfan with the funding for our explanatory polling firm, it's general election time kids.
Others are already beating us to it right in front of us!
benjipwns
Banned
The only results for "explanatory polling" are on NeoGAF, we can still grab the name!
For fun reference, the two polls that led to our coining the phrase:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=149842220&postcount=8163
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=151650965&postcount=9106
For fun reference, the two polls that led to our coining the phrase:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=149842220&postcount=8163
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=151650965&postcount=9106
The best part is, no matter which one you were referring to, it's still accurate.
Heh, solid Daily Show tonight, with Michelle Wolf going on a rant about how no one needs to like Hillary Clinton. She's running to be boss of the country, not your fucking friend.
And they played more interview footage from 1994 of Donald Trump talking about his thoughts on his then-wife working...
Nancy Collins: You have said that you don't want Marla to work, you actually said that...
Donald Trump: No...
Nancy Collins: Yeah, on the day of the wedding, actually.
Donald Trump: I think I'm probably mixed. I have days where I think it's great, and then I have days where if I come home and you know, [laughs] I don't want to sound too much like a chauvinist, but when I come home and dinner's not ready, I go through the roof, okay.
And they played more interview footage from 1994 of Donald Trump talking about his thoughts on his then-wife working...
Nancy Collins: You have said that you don't want Marla to work, you actually said that...
Donald Trump: No...
Nancy Collins: Yeah, on the day of the wedding, actually.
Donald Trump: I think I'm probably mixed. I have days where I think it's great, and then I have days where if I come home and you know, [laughs] I don't want to sound too much like a chauvinist, but when I come home and dinner's not ready, I go through the roof, okay.
Retromelon
Member
Jack Remington
Banned
No, this is stupid and offensive as fuck. Hillary is plenty likable. We really need to have a conversation about the rampant misogyny that's painfully apparent in this election. Hand waving that shit away with "no one needs to like you" just prevents us from having that conversation.
Not that I expect we will address the issue one way or another, since half the country won't admit there's a racism problem directed at Obama.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
What did I do?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's possible to dislike a woman and it not be misogynistic. I mean, obviously a segment of the dislike for Clinton comes from misogyny, but given the disparity between her favourables and favourables of other prominent female politicians who would also be affected by misogyny (I mean, you can look at Warren's from very early polling from last year before she confirmed she wouldn't run), a large part of Clinton's favourables are down to Clinton alone and not her gender. It's not really a controversial statement that many people do not find Clinton, on a personal basis, excluding Clinton's gender, likeable. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone - I'm sure Adam and her would have a whale of a time - but it is generally speaking true.
I mean, it really doesn't matter in terms of the quality of the governance, as Wolf correctly points out (although I think she doesn't discuss how likeability can aid in negotiation; people persons often achieve better deals), but sadly quality of governance is not only or even most significant determinant of why people vote.
The issue comes from the fact that a large amount of dislike is based on 30 years of absolutely mysogneistic smears. Whether it's her ambition, her lust for power, the fact she didn't stay in the kitchen - Hillary Clinton has been subject to sexist attacks for almost as lone as I've been alive, and that's resulted in people disliking her for the same things they tolerate in other people (including female politicians newer to the political scene).
She's been the subject of decades of endless smear campaigns which have affected what the general public thinks of her, those smear campaigns are largely based on misogyny...If Warren had faced the same thing I doubt that her favorables would be where they are.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Also, I don't think, true - her favourables were relatively good coming into this campaign, and there's been a significant difference between the start and now that can't be explained by what happened in the last thirty years. I think what's more probable is just that she's run a really bad campaign so far, and has been saved by the fact she's running against an independent 74-year old socialist and Donald Trump.
She's never been popular when running for office. Her numbers do a flip when she has an actual job though. Not popular when running for the Senate, popular as a Senator. Super popular as the head of the State department, not so much when running for president.
Hillary has high favourable so when she is doing a job, but low favourables when she is running for a job, Given that one of the most frequent criticisms of her is her ambition and lust for power I don't really see how that exemots it from my point.
(As if anyone running for office doesn't have ambition or want power, but somehow it's wrong for her).
Bel Marduk
Banned
Its incredibly classy to make fun of mentally ill people.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
right, and this is related to likeability vs. competence - you're much more in the public eye during campaigns so it comes down to personal charisma and you're rarely doing much with your office if you hold it, so people forego judgement on competence. I think that therefore supports the idea that the average person does not find Clinton especially likeable.
Which is fine, once in office! The UK's best prime minister was Clement Attlee, and Churchill was remarked of him that he once saw Attlee get out of an empty taxi, such was his sense of charisma. The only trouble is that it can damage election performance, which I think we're seeing right now with Clinton's figures much lower against Trump's than they should be considering, well, Trump is Trump.
shinra-bansho
Member
Judgements on "likeability" and "competence" and "leadership" and "authenticity" are inherently coloured by a degree of unconscious bias with regard to gender (and other) expectations.
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are still old white cis straight men. Even if one's a self proclaimed socialist and the other's a buffoon.
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are still old white cis straight men. Even if one's a self proclaimed socialist and the other's a buffoon.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
yes, but you would expect them to be relatively the same across women in politics, given that any woman in politics will be associated with ambition and the like. For example, I reckon Sarah Palin's favourability in PoliGAF will be something close to 0, and I think most of you would probably react quite defensively if I suggested that was because you were all misogynist, and that Palin actually possess likeability, competence, leadership and authenticity in bundles.
BotoxAgent
Member
so is the debate happening or not? I have been trying not to read too much of the other thread.
Not looking so likely anymore.
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm not sure how this follows at all. As women ascend further into leadership they attract increased animosity. The behaviours one must engage in to reach and hold leadership positions are often perfectly acceptable for men but are disliked in women. The degree to which they're attacked with this frame of reference is not the same.
Sarah Palin's favourability could be low, I don't know if I consider that the same as "likeability".
And there was a ton of sexism levelled at Palin regardless of views on her politics.
RustyNails
Member
But Ivanka is his daughter!
GregLombardi
Member
This video of Colbert & Dickerson is excellent excellent excellent, btw. 75 minutes long though:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/stephen...n-on-election-2016-what-the-hell-is-going-on/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/stephen...n-on-election-2016-what-the-hell-is-going-on/
Hillary's favorable are bad now, but I think they'll return to normal when Bernie Sanders goes a way for a few reasons.
1) Her favorables are good when she's not running for something.
2) The narrative for this primary, for better or worse, is Establishment vs. Anti-Establish. And against Bernie, Hillary simply is the Establishment candidate. That'll settle once he's out.
3) Her favorables are down more because of what people are doing to her, and less what she herself is doing. She's run an incredibly clean, positive campaign (especially compared to '08). She's navigated her run-ins with BLM well, immediately apologized for the Nancy Reagan thing, hasn't referenced any assassinations or invisible sniper fired, and has mostly refrained from throwing dirt at Bernie. And the world is so fatigued by the emails thing that nobody really cares anymore either way. But well, at the moment she's taking character blows from both sides. That would do a number to anyone's favorables.
1) Her favorables are good when she's not running for something.
2) The narrative for this primary, for better or worse, is Establishment vs. Anti-Establish. And against Bernie, Hillary simply is the Establishment candidate. That'll settle once he's out.
3) Her favorables are down more because of what people are doing to her, and less what she herself is doing. She's run an incredibly clean, positive campaign (especially compared to '08). She's navigated her run-ins with BLM well, immediately apologized for the Nancy Reagan thing, hasn't referenced any assassinations or invisible sniper fired, and has mostly refrained from throwing dirt at Bernie. And the world is so fatigued by the emails thing that nobody really cares anymore either way. But well, at the moment she's taking character blows from both sides. That would do a number to anyone's favorables.
How? She won't be facing attacks from both sides once the primary is well and truly over, and I really don't think the Establishment vs. Anti-Establishment narrative will continue to play in the general when both sides have consolidated their support. Especially since Trump seems keen to make more of a character/tabloid argument against Hillary, and Hillary will base her attacks around Trump being...well, a contemptible moron.
"Anti-Establishment vs Establishment" seems like a narrative more attuned for primaries. The nominees of the Republican and Democratic party are as establishment as it gets.
hammysaurusrex
Member
It's hard to say how Sanders impacts Hillary conclusively because it's still problematic to separate which fraction of his supporters are progressives (will go to Hillary) or populists (will go to Trump / Green). Just has to be a wait and see thing.
1. She'll be running for THE something.
2. Even with the nom, Trump is running as an outsider that just managed to "destroy" the system. He still claims he's not a part of it and he'll hit her with that.
3. It won't be a clean campaign.
I don't see her favorables rising so much come July.
nature boy
Member
People are forgetting the Libertarian candidate, who will also steal votes.
hammysaurusrex
Member
In which direction though? I would have naively assumed "never Trump" would either be silent this election would be the largest flock of Libertarian party conversions, but anecdotally I've seen many Bernie-or-bust acquaintances also flirting with the party now too.
We got "America has entered the post-racism era" thinkpieces when Obama was elected, so it wouldn't surprise me.
I feel like the people that would write those thinkpieces already believe that though. I agree they'll be written, but it's a common sentiment already.
Having experience and qualifications is not what's hot right now. Those people are the >>Establishment<<.
Maybe on the GOP side of things. The Dems seem pretty happy with their establishment.
nature boy
Member
If someone is able to switch their vote from Bernie to the Libertarian Party, then I don't think they're "reliable" democratic voters.
They're certainly not voting based on policy.
Sirpopopop
Member
A lot of the Ron Paul voters went Bernie this time.
jack_package_200
Banned
I kind of want to make thread about Bernie's Univision interview. Although if the Trump Sanders debate thread is anything to go by, the thread will become a dumpster fire.
A negative Bernie thread, the very first post will be a dumpster fire.
Or a circle jerk.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked