-
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.
These Women Could Beat Trump, So Naturally Theyre Being Attacked Like Hillary
- Thread starter flkraven
- Start date
Omegasquash
Member
"I don't know. I mean she's got the experience and the know-how, but she just comes off as so cold and even bitchy sometimes."
legacyzero
Banned
Put Warren on the card. I'll vote for her.
LegendofJoe
Member
The messaging machine of the left isn't up to the task of beating back the abject nonsense coming from the right. If we ever want this country to come to its senses and stop favoring extreme right policies and politicians that needs to change.
Shake Appeal
Member
This Take Is Hot, So Naturally It Will Get Clicks
I'm a big fan of Gillibrand. I'd prefer her over the other 2.
So is common wisdom the opposite? That women aren't disproportionally scrutinized when running for office.
So is common wisdom the opposite? That women aren't disproportionally scrutinized when running for office.
Shake Appeal
Member
No, it's true in this country. Trivially true. But it's also a muddying tactic when there are actual substantive concerns about a candidate who happens to be a woman.
My perspective on this is a little skewed because I grew up in a country where the president was a woman from 1990 to 2011 inclusive, so it's weird to me that my adopted country even has this level of latent misogyny. America never ceases to surprise!
giant_frying_pan
Member
Read title as 'beat up'
No lies in my subliminal brain detected.
No lies in my subliminal brain detected.
WiiredShawn
Member
"She even supports feminism, bah gawd!"
Why are we in 1915
Why are we in 1915
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Once they have decided to run, women candidates are actually no less likely to win than equivalent male candidates. This is relatively well-corroborated data in political science, across (for example):
Kathleen Dolan (2004, 50) "Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates. Boulder: Westview Press"
Fox, Richard L. (2010) ”Congressional Elections: Women's Candidacies and the Road to Gender Parity." In Gender and Elections, 2nd edition, eds. S. Carroll and R. Fox. New York: Cambridge University Press
Lawless, Jennifer L. and Kathryn Pearson. (2008) ”The Primary Reason for Women's Under- Representation: Re-Evaluating the Conventional Wisdom." Journal of Politics 70(1):67-82
Smith, Eric R.A.N. and Richard L. Fox. (2001) ”A Research Note: The Electoral Fortunes of Women Candidates for Congress." Political Research Quarterly 54(1):205-21
Cook, Elizabeth Adell. (1998) ”Voter Reaction to Women Candidates." In Women and Elective Of ce, eds. S. Thomas and C. Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press
J. Newman and M. Voorhees Leighton (1997) "Sex as a Political Variable." Boulder: Lynne Reinner
They also raise equivalent amount of funds, and receive equal air-time.
The reason there are less women politicians isn't because they don't win - they win at comparable rates to men - it's because they don't run. The mainstay of the sexism is one stage earlier in the process - there's cultural pressure on women to be more risk-averse, women are typically expected to perform domestic roles that prevent them from entering the earliest stages of a political career as councillors/state representatives/etc., women are conditioned to under-perceive rather than over-perceive their achievements and see themselves as less likely to win than equivalent male candidates.
So I don't think this will be a very successful tactic for the GOP, since, given their intention to run, Harris and Gillibrand have already 'made it', and you would not expect their genders to have significant impacts on their likelihood of success from this point on.
Kathleen Dolan (2004, 50) "Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates. Boulder: Westview Press"
Fox, Richard L. (2010) ”Congressional Elections: Women's Candidacies and the Road to Gender Parity." In Gender and Elections, 2nd edition, eds. S. Carroll and R. Fox. New York: Cambridge University Press
Lawless, Jennifer L. and Kathryn Pearson. (2008) ”The Primary Reason for Women's Under- Representation: Re-Evaluating the Conventional Wisdom." Journal of Politics 70(1):67-82
Smith, Eric R.A.N. and Richard L. Fox. (2001) ”A Research Note: The Electoral Fortunes of Women Candidates for Congress." Political Research Quarterly 54(1):205-21
Cook, Elizabeth Adell. (1998) ”Voter Reaction to Women Candidates." In Women and Elective Of ce, eds. S. Thomas and C. Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press
J. Newman and M. Voorhees Leighton (1997) "Sex as a Political Variable." Boulder: Lynne Reinner
They also raise equivalent amount of funds, and receive equal air-time.
The reason there are less women politicians isn't because they don't win - they win at comparable rates to men - it's because they don't run. The mainstay of the sexism is one stage earlier in the process - there's cultural pressure on women to be more risk-averse, women are typically expected to perform domestic roles that prevent them from entering the earliest stages of a political career as councillors/state representatives/etc., women are conditioned to under-perceive rather than over-perceive their achievements and see themselves as less likely to win than equivalent male candidates.
So I don't think this will be a very successful tactic for the GOP, since, given their intention to run, Harris and Gillibrand have already 'made it', and you would not expect their genders to have significant impacts on their likelihood of success from this point on.
GregLombardi
Member
Warren could not beat Trump IMO.
I completely support everything she says, but even I do not like her method of delivery / discussing things. Not saying I wouldn't vote for her, it's just how I feel, especially about how other people will react to her. And I'm about as anti-trump as one could possibly get.
I completely support everything she says, but even I do not like her method of delivery / discussing things. Not saying I wouldn't vote for her, it's just how I feel, especially about how other people will react to her. And I'm about as anti-trump as one could possibly get.
IggyChooChoo
Member
Whoa whoa whoa, there's a *second* Gorka?
Shake Appeal
Member
Hm, yes. Would you describe it as, say, "shrill"?
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Warren is a laughable candidate and wouldn't beat Trump. Not impressed by Gillibrand at all. Harris is very good.
I'd bet money that the nominee won't be a woman in 2020. Part of that is sexism, the other part is there aren't that many good female politicians who have the clout or talent to win the democrat primary process. Harris is the only one I'd take seriously.
I'd bet money that the nominee won't be a woman in 2020. Part of that is sexism, the other part is there aren't that many good female politicians who have the clout or talent to win the democrat primary process. Harris is the only one I'd take seriously.
TumblingHippo
Member
I'm all for the dramatic so if there truly is justice for this crappy timeline then a woman has to be the one that beats Trump.
Do smear campaigns reduce women's likelihood of running in the first place?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, absolutely. Women candidates are equally as likely to win as male candidates, but perceive their chances as significantly lower than they actually are, and smear campaigns play a large role in that. The main advantage of sexist smear campaigns is not in damaging the chances of the woman who is actually running, but by deterring potentially high-quality women candidates in the future.
This:
https://www.american.edu/spa/wpi/upload/2012-men-rule-report-web.pdf
is phenomenal reading if you want to understand the problem of the lack of women in politics. Well-sourced, clear to read, concrete policy solutions.
Most of the most actionable things can (and need) to be done at grassroots level. For example, women are significantly less likely to be encouraged to run by friends and family compared to an equivalent man. If you know a woman who you think would do well in an entry-level political post, stop reading this post and go tell her right now!
Skellig Gra
Member
I know I'll get some hate for this but can we please just pick an easy slam dunk candidate. Not someone who is going to alienate voters (regardless of if that's fair or not). We need to get back to normal before we can reach for new heights.
Thanks -- looking forward to giving this a read
One could argue this is the thinking that led to Hillary's coronation in the first place
Let them fight to the (political) death. The best candidate will survive, and be stronger for it.
Hello? This is Hailun!
Member
If I vote it would be for a Warten ticket. But not a Harris ticket.
"But if you don't vote for Harris or Clinton you're sexist". Gtfo
Skellig Gra
Member
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
Saw this a lot from pundits on news coverage last year.
you are going to get a lot of hate for this because its honestly a dumb concept, has always been silly. EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE is flawed in some way. So just asking for this "slam dunk" is not realistic people need to get over themselves and stop needing to fall in love with candidates and worry more about what policies they are looking to put in place. There isnt anyone that will not alienate some voter and quite honestly i am tired of people crying about candidates they arent in love with over what platform they are running on. That matters more. We dont always like everything about the people we work with for what ever reason but as long as they are capable of doing a good job that matter way more than all these silly things people look to discredit people for,.
"Hillary can't do this thing or this thing or this thing or this thing or else she loses the debate."
"All Trump has to do is tone it down and he wins"
EVERY. FUCKING. TIME
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
The dude admitted to tax evasion on TV and people were asking why Hillary looked so serious.
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
Hillary has to be perfect but not too perfect
Trump has to say words that sound like english
Trump seems really unique in his "ability" to somehow spew out crap that just doesn't matter. It's amazing how far people, even those predisposed against supporting him, lowered the bar for his conduct.
"Binders full of women" and "47%" seemed to have a tangible effect on Romney. Trump could say those quotes back to back during a debate and he'd be praised if he managed to spit them out in the form of coherent sentences.
Skellig Gra
Member
You are saying people need to get over themselves and I'm the one being dumb? I'm being practical. People are going to act exactly the same as every other election which is why we need to minimize exposure to lose independents/democrat non voters.
legacyzero
Banned
It's almost as if there are people that vote for what a candidate stands for over anything else. I disliked Clinton in the Primary for obvious reasons. But voted in the GE for her to "do my part".
You can't just default to sexism when not supporting a female candidate. I mean... Carly Fiorna was running for President lol. I'd support an actually great candidate that has a great policy stance. Warren is effectively that. My only complaint about her was not doing the principled thing and supporting Bernie in the Primary. But I see her being a contender in 2020. She's clearly running.
CitizenVectron
Member
So there could be at least three women vying for the Dem nomination in 2020: Harris, Gillibrand, and Warren.
So the election was pretty depressing overall, but I hit this low point of just all-consuming rage when Clinton gave her concession speech. We were already well into "STOP USING SEXISM AS AN EXCUSE, SHE WAS BAD IT WAS NEVER SEXISM AT ALL EVER" at that point.
So she's giving a speech with what, to me, seemed like the kind of emotional control you have to develop to find a way to be assertive, female, and not immediately accused of getting emotional in a professional setting.
So it's this fairly controlled speech from somebody who certainly looked upset to me, and people immediately start ragging on her for being 'cold' and 'robotic' because she wasn't conveying the amount of upset they wanted.
She didn't lose solely because of sexism, but the rules for women are different. I know about the Trump/Clinton debate gender swap thing, and I think things surrounding that get kind of complicated, but the refusal to see the role the differing standards for women played in Clinton's defeat is incredibly depressing because it makes things like this article seem inevitable. We can't address the issue if we don't acknowledge it exists.
Angelus Errare
Banned
I'll vote for whoever is the nominee In the GE and pick who I want in the primary.
You'd think such a basic concept would be understood by folks.
You'd think such a basic concept would be understood by folks.
legacyzero
Banned
I'll bite-
Who would that be? And unfortunately, your idea already hits a wall when the DNC is more unpopular than the most unpopular President in history. Right now, the DNC is totally incapable of even reaching the RIM, much less a slam dunk. I agree that a slam dunk win would be great, but the DNC is a lot like a fellow player on your team blocking your own attempt at the dunk, and wondering why you're mad at them afterward.
Thats the problem with all this. The DNC is playing too hard a role in determining who that 'slam dunk' is. And their idea of what it means is completely different than what the people want. Right now, the people who are being rumored to be running, aren't slam dunk candidates at all. In fact, they carry a lot of the same burden that Hillary carried going in to 2015/16. Establishment, corporate dems being chained by their preference to the party and donors over the people. And there's no sign of this being fixed anytime soon, unfortunately
That was annoying as hell. I mean, unbelievably annoying. It wasn't just the media doing that either. Thats the real takeaway. It was all across the board you could notice it. All Trump needed to do was not meltdown, while Hillary had to be picture perfect.
It was amazing all the "She's smiling too much" vs "She isn't showing any emotion, totally robotic" while Trump literally self immolated when trying to answer simple questions and people viewed it as okay.
Yeah. Stakes are too high. We have to get Trump out of office.
Skellig Gra
Member
You are right, its a mess. Slam dunk is too strong of a word I suppose. We need someone like Obama in the sense that he was clean and there was very little ammo to use against him. Obviously there isn't a 1 to 1 out there or else this would be easy. Someone who has been in politics for 40 years is not going to be a good choice.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
See, the problem is that none of them are young and blonde, and none of them like being grabbed by the pussy.
They should just stick to politics instead of circus.
They should just stick to politics instead of circus.
"Trump didn't shit his pants so by definition he did good"
SolidSnakeUS
Member
In all seriousness, I hope Kamala runs. Much young candidate than Hillary, Bernie or Warren (even though I really like Warren) and has a great background. I guess it comes down to, who would be the ideal running mate? Maybe Schumer?
legacyzero
Banned
Being a politician for 40 and being disregarded for that is kind of arbitrary. I'd vote for somebody that shows very good principle over that time frame, and holds a good policy position now. Now if you show tons of political expedient flip-flopping over that time, I wouldn't be surprised if you're called out for all of it.
So that would really depend on the candidate.
Solving the cultural toxicity towards women leaders is very important and will take decades.
Running a woman for president will result in fewer votes because of that cultural toxicity.
Winning elections is vitally urgent and can't wait for a cultural movement to transform hearts and minds.
As a result I really hope the democrats suck up this frustration and get behind a likable strong white man like Jason Kander in 2020.
Running a woman for president will result in fewer votes because of that cultural toxicity.
Winning elections is vitally urgent and can't wait for a cultural movement to transform hearts and minds.
As a result I really hope the democrats suck up this frustration and get behind a likable strong white man like Jason Kander in 2020.
I'd be quite pleased with any of them. But I think Warren might serve better as a VP than POTUS, if only because she might be able to then focus more on domestic issues and initiatives. Plus legitimate or not, the age factor is not going to help her at all.
She's much stronger when it comes to domestic issues and policy and her personality and command of the issues and language would serve her very well as the the President's "attack dog" getting out there and campaigning across the country and in Washington on their behalf. Her passion is very genuine and having her able to dedicate more time to that than be stretched thin by the office of the Presidency might be more worthwhile for those policies.
Everyone loved Diamond Joe and he did great in the role, but he wasn't without his faux pas and misstatements. Warren has as much, if not way more, bite than Joe, but isn't as goofy/cavalier as him leading to a foot in the mouth. Though she still very personable.
So I'd be thrilled for a Harris/Warren or Gillibrand/Warren ticket, however unlikely that may be. Most likely they'll want a male VP to "balance" the ticket as well as someone with greater Foreign Policy experience which they're all rather light on.
She's much stronger when it comes to domestic issues and policy and her personality and command of the issues and language would serve her very well as the the President's "attack dog" getting out there and campaigning across the country and in Washington on their behalf. Her passion is very genuine and having her able to dedicate more time to that than be stretched thin by the office of the Presidency might be more worthwhile for those policies.
Everyone loved Diamond Joe and he did great in the role, but he wasn't without his faux pas and misstatements. Warren has as much, if not way more, bite than Joe, but isn't as goofy/cavalier as him leading to a foot in the mouth. Though she still very personable.
So I'd be thrilled for a Harris/Warren or Gillibrand/Warren ticket, however unlikely that may be. Most likely they'll want a male VP to "balance" the ticket as well as someone with greater Foreign Policy experience which they're all rather light on.
LegendofJoe
Member
The guy on the piano here is who you're looking for:
http://www.latimes.com/93142699-132.html
Eric Garcetti is a lot like Obama. If he gets to the Senate next year and runs for President as he is rumored to I strongly believe he will win the nomination.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
Voters' misguided notion that an unlikable man will be hard on politicians and get the job done faster while an unlikable woman is an annoying bitch.
ThLunarian
Member
Amen to that
Similar threads
- Locked