Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

Or "I'm more of what you liked about Obama, without the parts you didn't like. Whatever that means to a majority of you at a given point in time."

Are the majority of you against drone strikes? So am I! And if popular opinion swings and people are now in favor drone strikes, then so am I!
She was against gay marriage before she supported it.
She was against Wall Street reform before she supported it.
She was for the TPP before she was against it.

I'm not saying she's not allowed to change her mind on issues, but it's hard not to be cynical when those changes always seem to be politically expedient and apropos of nothing.

That's the thing about trying to make it a gender thing (as it was about trying to make Obama's presidency a race thing) for me: I don't give two shits that you're not an old white man from the core party establishment if you're pushing the same line of bullshit as them. I'd rather have a president with policy positions which benefit the broader population--incidentally, including women and racial/ethnic minorities--than a token president with policy positions that reinforce the status quo of a federal government with all of the failings of big government and none of the benefits.

Exactly. If electing a black President were the core prerogative for black people, you'd expect to have seen a mass defection to the Republican party to vote for Ben Carson, since the Dems are only running white people.

So I'm not sure why there's all this indignant incredulity on the part of Clinton and her supporters that women (especially young women) aren't flocking to Hillary.

[Rolan7]

Ben Carson's a crackpot shill, so it's not comparable.  He's almost as whacko as Trump.
The candidates race is a factor, but there are hundreds of factors. 

[smjjames]

Or "I'm more of what you liked about Obama, without the parts you didn't like. Whatever that means to a majority of you at a given point in time."

Are the majority of you against drone strikes? So am I! And if popular opinion swings and people are now in favor drone strikes, then so am I!
She was against gay marriage before she supported it.
She was against Wall Street reform before she supported it.
She was for the TPP before she was against it.

I'm not saying she's not allowed to change her mind on issues, but it's hard not to be cynical when those changes always seem to be politically expedient and apropos of nothing.

That's the thing about trying to make it a gender thing (as it was about trying to make Obama's presidency a race thing) for me: I don't give two shits that you're not an old white man from the core party establishment if you're pushing the same line of bullshit as them. I'd rather have a president with policy positions which benefit the broader population--incidentally, including women and racial/ethnic minorities--than a token president with policy positions that reinforce the status quo of a federal government with all of the failings of big government and none of the benefits.

Exactly. If electing a black President were the core prerogative for black people, you'd expect to have seen a mass defection to the Republican party to vote for Ben Carson, since the Dems are only running white people.

So I'm not sure why there's all this indignant incredulity on the part of Clinton and her supporters that women (especially young women) aren't flocking to Hillary.

*pre-emptively sprays fire retardant around*

Maybe because they expect loyalty to feminism? At least the older generation seems to.

Anyways, theres a new Ipsos/Reuters poll that has both Kasich and Bush behind Carson by one point. Internet based poll though. Things seem pretty chaotic with a fleeting chance that Carson won't end up last in SC. Edit: Nvm, that ipsos/reuters poll is a national poll, not SC.

[RedKing]

Ben Carson's a crackpot shill, so it's not comparable.  He's almost as whacko as Trump.
The candidates race is a factor, but there are hundreds of factors.

And that's my point -- Hillary seems to be treating her gender as the core factor, whether it be for or against. Women should vote for her, because she's a woman. And people who don't want to vote for her must be doing it because they don't want to see a woman President (or mayor of New York). It's intellectually lazy.

Maybe because they expect loyalty to feminism? At least the older generation seems to.

And that's about as out-of-touch and easily mocked as Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson demanding that black people vote for Obama. Instead, Jackson called Obama a n****r and said he wanted to "cut his nuts off".

Sharpton, admittedly, was an Obama surrogate and did push black voters to vote for Obama. But I can't for the life of me find any instance of Sharpton (or other notable figures in the civil rights movement) haranguing black voters who were thinking of voting for someone else. (And to be fair, Obama's support in the African-American community was so high that it wasn't really an issue.)

[Rolan7]

Respectfully, that's not the impression I got from any of the debates.  Yeah it came up in passing, but wasn't the focus.  The focus was...  She's been playing the game for a long time, and she gets results.

A lot of people would rather elect the opposite, a more extreme candidate like Sanders, and I understand that.  I just don't see how it's supposed to work.  Particularly after watching Obama, man of amazing promises, flounder and struggle to get anything done.

[Frumple]

I'm not saying she's not allowed to change her mind on issues, but it's hard not to be cynical when those changes always seem to be politically expedient and apropos of nothing.

Except, of course, as has been noted repeatedly in this thread, the multiple times it wasn't. Don't even particularly care for clinton, but if you're going to slag her at least do it for stuff that doesn't have clear and demonstrated counterexamples. It's not like those don't exist, the lady's made her genuine missteps over the years.

a token president with policy positions that reinforce the status quo of a federal government with all of the failings of big government and none of the benefits.

Man, if these last eight years have been that status quo I can think of a hell of a lot that would be worse.* I'd also seriously question your definition of no benefits, heh, because the damned thing has actually been managing to get some decent shit done over the last near-decade, even in the face of constant attempts to sabotage it.

Also yeah, rol, check that link and the link inside it. Obama's definitely had a great deal of trouble, and didn't exactly meet his original presentatino, but the guy's managed to get a somewhat surprising amount of stuff done.

*Bernie having substantial influence over national level economics would be one of them :V

Love the guy on a lot of the social and general societal safety net stuff, but that economic policy... I couldn't really justify voting for the guy if he had a genuine chance to win. Alright protest vote (and better than the republican candidates regardless, not that that's particularly difficult with their current roster), but as he is I wouldn't particularly want to see him as POTUS. VP, maybe? Especially if he was kept away from said economy on his problem points. Love to see the guy's general ethos gain more traction, just... keep him away from trade.

[smjjames]

I'm out of touch or the clinton people are out of touch? I was just guessing, and maybe being slightly trollish in a sarcastic way.... edit: and maybe I'm using the word feminism incorrectly....

Honestly, I don't know why exactly they're being indignant about it, other than that apparently some of those of Hillary's and Albrights generation expected women to flock to Hillary, which is the appearance they are giving.

[RedKing]

I'm not saying she's not allowed to change her mind on issues, but it's hard not to be cynical when those changes always seem to be politically expedient and apropos of nothing.

Except, of course, as has been noted repeatedly in this thread, the multiple times it wasn't. Don't even particularly care for clinton, but if you're going to slag her at least do it for stuff that doesn't have clear and demonstrated counterexamples. It's not like those don't exist, the lady's made her genuine missteps over the years.

Granted, that's not applicable to every issue. She's been consistently in favor of raising the minimum wage, even if not to as high a level as some would like. She's been consistent in wanting health care reform, on voting rights, on not eating babies, on a whole host of issues that pretty much ALL (or at least most) Democrats support. I don't see what I'm supposed to do, list every issue she hasn't changed on??

a token president with policy positions that reinforce the status quo of a federal government with all of the failings of big government and none of the benefits.

Man, if these last eight years have been that status quo I can think of a hell of a lot that would be worse.* I'd also seriously question your definition of no benefits, heh, because the damned thing has actually been managing to get some decent shit done over the last near-decade, even in the face of constant attempts to sabotage it.

Also yeah, rol, check that link and the link inside it. Obama's definitely had a great deal of trouble, and didn't exactly meet his original presentatino, but the guy's managed to get a somewhat surprising amount of stuff done.

*Bernie having substantial influence over national level economics would be one of them :V

Love the guy on a lot of the social and general societal safety net stuff, but that economic policy... I couldn't really justify voting for the guy if he had a genuine chance to win. Alright protest vote (and better than the republican candidates regardless, not that that's particularly difficult with their current roster), but as he is I wouldn't particularly want to see him as POTUS. VP, maybe? Especially if he was kept away from said economy on his problem points. Love to see the guy's general ethos gain more traction, just... keep him away from trade.

Bernie's not going to wreck the economy, because Congress won't let him. Worst-case scenario, precisely nothing changes for four years after he's elected. Except that we stop signing more free trade agreements that funnel jobs and cash overseas. Best-case scenario, Congress shifts to the left, and we start seeing some progressivism again in this country. We're not going to convert overnight into the People's Republic of Canmexica (now, with maple-glazed bacon burritos!).


EDIT:
FWIW, yes I will agree that Clinton will likely get more accomplished than Sanders will. Clinton's a professional insider and she knows how to bust balls. I can comfort myself with the notion that if she gets elected, she will have the GOP by the short hairs and won't be afraid to yank. Except that I think she will be, because her personality screams "once in power, preserve it at all costs". Even if that means swinging back hard to the center and abandoning a lot of the progressive platform she's currently espousing. Anything that would be too politically costly will be abandoned.
Do I have proof for that? No.
Do I believe it? Abso-fucking-lutely.

@smjjames: I was saying that Albright and Steinem, et al. were out-of-touch. I think you're spot on, having been married to a feminist and hearing from her the history of the feminist movement and all the generational and ideological infighting that entailed.

[smjjames]

A republican dominated congress probably wouldn't let Sanders do anything good for the economy either, and I don't know about congress not letting Sanders not wreck the economy, after all, the republicans during George W. Bush's adminstration did wreck the economy, though granted that was towards the end of his second term.

[RedKing]

A republican dominated congress probably wouldn't let Sanders do anything good for the economy either, and I don't know about congress not letting Sanders not wreck the economy, after all, the republicans during George W. Bush's adminstration did wreck the economy, though granted that was towards the end of his second term.

Yes, but that's because Republicans would let GWB do damn near anything he wants. Democrats *might* be that way with Sanders, but I doubt it. There's still more than a few centrist Dems in Congress. The same is much harder to say about the GOP.

[nenjin]

FWIW, yes I will agree that Clinton will likely get more accomplished than Sanders will. Clinton's a professional insider and she knows how to bust balls. I can comfort myself with the notion that if she gets elected, she will have the GOP by the short hairs and won't be afraid to yank.

It's a nice fantasy, but I don't think we've seen the limits of Republican contempt for the office of the President yet. With Obama we got 8 years of Republicans making veiled reference to his race and how that effects his politics, with a large contingent of his most ardent detractors just going straight to calling him "that nigger president."

What makes you think they're suddenly going to be cowed by Hilary? They've hated her and Bill for way, way longer than they've hated Obama. The Clintons, before Obama, were the poster children for everything that's wrong with Democrats as far as Republicans are concerned. It was a Clinton that gave the Democratic party new strength by showing how well things worked out after a change away from the Reagan years.

I think it's far more likely that if she's elected and Republicans retain control of both houses....that you'll start seeing veiled and/or not very subtle references to her gender as political attacks. From stuff as petty as criticizing her clothes or her hair cut, to implying her gender prevents her from making solid, presidential decisions.

[Loud Whispers]

Much more likely for Clinton to use identity politics to make herself immune to criticism and demolish Repubs as misogynists though, whereas Sanders can't pull any such cards

[Helgoland]

And you can bet your sweet ass that the association 'feminine ~ weak' will be played a lot, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Maybe she could use that to her advantage though, what with women supposedly being more diplomatic and all.

A republican dominated congress probably wouldn't let Sanders do anything good for the economy either, and I don't know about congress not letting Sanders not wreck the economy, after all, the republicans during George W. Bush's adminstration did wreck the economy, though granted that was towards the end of his second term.

Well, that's when it all blew up. The dynamite was planted earlier.

[Loud Whispers]

And you can bet your sweet ass that the association 'feminine ~ weak' will be played a lot, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Maybe she could use that to her advantage though, what with women supposedly being more diplomatic and all.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

u wot
This is drama student level of identity politics, Hillary's mastered it fully and since Queen Elizabeth I has this not been played
(Do they teach the history of Elizabeth in USA?)

No, if they're going to attack her on this they're going to strike for her influence by Bill and the troops killed in Benghazi or the use of public email by someone whose job is security

[RedKing]

FWIW, yes I will agree that Clinton will likely get more accomplished than Sanders will. Clinton's a professional insider and she knows how to bust balls. I can comfort myself with the notion that if she gets elected, she will have the GOP by the short hairs and won't be afraid to yank.

It's a nice fantasy, but I don't think we've seen the limits of Republican contempt for the office of the President yet. With Obama we got 8 years of Republicans making veiled reference to his race and how that effects his politics, with a large contingent of his most ardent detractors just going straight to calling him "that nigger president."

What makes you think they're suddenly going to be cowed by Hilary? They've hated her and Bill for way, way longer than they've hated Obama. The Clintons, before Obama, were the poster children for everything that's wrong with Democrats as far as Republicans are concerned. It was a Clinton that gave the Democratic party new strength by showing how well things worked out after a change away from the Reagan years.

I think it's far more likely that if she's elected and Republicans retain control of both houses....that you'll start seeing veiled and/or not very subtle references to her gender as political attacks. From stuff as petty as criticizing her clothes or her hair cut, to implying her gender prevents her from making solid, presidential decisions.

Oh, that'll happen regardless. But the actual politicians who have to deal with her, they'll be the ones cowed because they know she knows how to play the game. Not to mention half of them think the Clintons have had people assassinated.

Now the punditry and the drooling rank-and-file, yeah they'll shift from being incredibly racist, obnoxious assholes to being incredibly sexist, obnoxious assholes. Not that they weren't already, it'll just a change in focus. But Hillary DGAF bout all that.

The one caveat to that is that it was easier for Republicans to go racist because it didn't have that much electoral blowback. It's not like there were droves of black Republicans to worry about alienating (11% of black voters identify Republican). Compared to 36% of women. So if they start making vulgar cracks about Hillary's genitalia, menopause, etc. standard fare, they risk further shrinking their base. Which is fine by me.


EDIT:

Much more likely for Clinton to use identity politics to make herself immune to criticism and demolish Repubs as misogynists though, whereas Sanders can't pull any such cards

Yeah, cause remember when Obama said, "Damn, y'all are some racist motherfuckers" and then Republicans everywhere were demolished? Good times.

Spoiler: Sorry, I meant Good Times. (click to show/hide)