The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Greg Davidson on August 11, 2016, 10:39:11 AM

Title: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 11, 2016, 10:39:11 AM
Within a very short time after Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton, she has led a campaign effort that has absolutely devasted Donald Trump and the prospects that he will win the Presidency. I suspect that some people will not give her any credit, instead asserting that Trump's fall was inevitable and she's just a weak candidate who got lucky. And I think that way of thinking may be because she is a female politician.

Look at the evidence - Trump had previously ripped through a field of 15 other Republican candidates.  Over a year, his failure was supposed to be inevitable, and yet somehow that never happened. And then in just a number of weeks after Sanders endorsed her and she could focus on Trump, he appears to be heading towards the biggest Republican loss since the 1960's. And it is notable that many of the ways in which Hillary has done such damage to his campaign has been through approaches that don't fit in with our stereotypical view of what it is to be a powerfgul male political figure.

Part of her strength is the strong support from Barack (and Michelle) Obama, her bitter rival from the 2008 campaign.  How did she get there with him, and his coalition? Well, after a bitter loss, she got up and left her ego at the door, serving him loyally as Secretary of State. That's unusual behavior for a leading national politician, and one that won the loyalty of many Obama supporters.  She had a thorough and diligently planned convention, attacking the smears against her character with testimonials from a lifetime on service to regular human beings in ways that are different from traditional politicians (you may not be swayed by her personal involvement with the health concerns of her constituents after 9/11, but her lifetime of actions were persuasive to many moderates). She was very conciliatory to the Bernie Sanders coalition, more so than a number of other politicians would be. She picked Tim Kaine as a VP candidate, an interesting choice because she was both prioritizing governing experience over campaign cachet and yet also she did have a planned niche for his campaigning skills. 

And someone had to plan the political attacks and traps for Trump.  The Khans did not show up at the Democratic convention by accident. There has been a huge effort expended in get-out-the-vote. She is implementing close to a 50 state strategy (a current lead in Georgia? Utah close?). Of course she is not flawless as a candidate. She lacks the same level of personal charisma as other candidates, and she has sufferred some damage as part of the 25 years of attack. But that's what makes her current efforts demonstrate considerable political skill.

Donald Trump has gotten kudos over the past year for the success of his innovative campaign approach. Bernie Sanders has gotten kudos for his insurgent campaign in the democratic primaries. But I suspect that Hillary Clinton will not get anything near the credit given to them despite beating them both.

And I believe that one reason for that is that she is a woman.

Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: D.W. on August 11, 2016, 11:16:13 AM
I will say that the tone set at the convention was well planned.  If that was largely driven by her tactics, bravo.  If it wasn’t, well she still gets credit for appointing the right staff for the job.  (a very important ability for the PotUS)  That said, to say “got lucky” under sells the situation to a comic level.  There is quite frankly no other possible opponent who would make victory easier than Trump.  He is a gift to the DNC and I think that a Mr. Potato Head doll could have been nominated and probably have a good shot at beating Trump.

I can’t say for certain that sexism doesn’t/didn’t contribute to getting to this point where a large number of people don’t trust her.  I personally think her gender is the least of those.  Most smear tactics over an extensive timeline, but some (to me at least) legitimate criticisms mixed in as well dwarf any preference to a man or woman in office.  I will say her last name is a strike against her IMO.  Any child, spouse, sibling or the like of a past president, I don’t like running for the office.  Not that this isn’t an advantage likely in both experience and knowing how the system works (not to mention the cash to pull it off) but it just sits wrong with me to even hint at a dynastic preference for the office.

Trump is a protest vote by the Republican base.  They courted crazies, AND refused to do their job unless you are of the opinion that obstructionisms was good enough given their options.  Their voting base either feels they are impotent, incompetent or using them.  Hence, candidate Trump.  You are focusing on Hillary’s ability to focus on Trump but you’ve got it backwards.  It was Trump’s ability to focus on Hillary that was the significant change.  Now, when Trump takes aim at her, his sexism may be a big factor.   Every time Trump opens his mouth her position is going to improve.  Her being a woman HELPS because Trump is sexist.  She’s not at a disadvantage because of her sex in any way.  It is only a boon given who her opponent is. 

Her backing by Obama and his administration is indeed a huge asset and she absolutely deserves credit for her political achievements and qualifications.  As far as being conciliatory to the Sanders coalition, I don’t know.  Seemed about par for the course.  They/we don’t trust her to close the gap between the two candidates.  Time will tell however.  That said, the gap policy wise was not as huge as it was made out to be.  Nothing compared to the gulf between Democratic and Republican policy preference. 

On the note about lacking Charisma I think this is just a case of bad luck.  Having her husband and Obama as direct comparisons to measure against… well that sucks for anyone.  I don’t think we can fairly say if gender factors into that measurement or not.  It was a pretty unfair comparison for anyone to live up to.  I don’t think Sanders came close either.  Maybe if he was the candidate we’d be talking about ageism instead of sexism? 
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 11, 2016, 12:34:11 PM
Look at the evidence - Trump had previously ripped through a field of 15 other Republican candidates.

To quote Schwartzenegger, "yes, but they were all bad."

Quote
Part of her strength is the strong support from Barack (and Michelle) Obama, her bitter rival from the 2008 campaign.  How did she get there with him, and his coalition?

I'm pretty sure he had to support her, regardless of his personal feelings on the matter. I don't think she earned his support; she was always going to have it because that's how the party works. Just look at what happened when Trump briefly intimated he might not support some of the Republican Congressmen; the s**t hit the fan and he had to back off. Now imagine not supporting a Presidential candidate branded by the party. Ain't gonna happen.
 
Quote
Well, after a bitter loss, she got up and left her ego at the door, serving him loyally as Secretary of State.

That's not the way I would put it. Why not say she took the best opportunity she could to give herself chances at the Presidency down the road? In any case, to say she served him "loyally" is a very stacked statement, especially since I suspect Obama personally hates her and that they were politically at odds with each other for much of her tenure there. If I had to guess I'd say he had to put in some efforts to keep her and her people in check, sometimes having to relent and let them have their way (such as in Libya). But he may well have fought them back on the Syria topic. We'll probably never know the insider details there.

Quote
She was very conciliatory to the Bernie Sanders coalition

You mean after she had already beaten them? Yes, how gracious of her.

Quote
Donald Trump has gotten kudos over the past year for the success of his innovative campaign approach. Bernie Sanders has gotten kudos for his insurgent campaign in the democratic primaries. But I suspect that Hillary Clinton will not get anything near the credit given to them despite beating them both.

And I believe that one reason for that is that she is a woman.

I think people don't want to give her credit for different reasons. Some just don't like her, some think she represents a broken system that rigs elections, and some think, as D.W. mentioned, that she'll win due to having a weak opponent rather than being a superior candidate. You can argue against these reasons, but none of them has to do with her being a woman. I also agree with D.W. that being a woman has probably been a liability in some cases and an asset in others. However on the whole I suspect it will have gained her far more than it cost her, especially considering her hard campaigning on being the first WOMAN President. So even if it's true that her being a woman is 'out there' in people's minds, at the very least you should note it's because she made damn certain it was.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: scifibum on August 11, 2016, 01:38:44 PM
I've done some introspection about why I don't like Hillary Clinton, and I think it's partly sexist.  The part of me that thinks she's too stiff and reserved, too calculated and overproduced: these are criticisms I'm less likely to be bothered by in men, I think. 

But it's hard to know for sure if the things I can chalk partly up to sexism have anything to do with my general disapproval, because it's also that she represents an extremely troubling dynastic pattern of leadership, and that she isn't progressive enough to satisfy me, and she got behind disastrous policies in the past.   

But I have to agree that the tone and content of the DNC was very well done, and her campaign deserves credit for letting Trump hang himself out to dry.  But some of the credit goes to Trump.  His attempt to scare people into accepting his protection racket was a huge target that the DNC could hardly miss, and his displays of impulsivity and immaturity have been constant and themed on xenophobia and his own ego, so it doesn't take geniuses to lob him some softballs. 
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: scifibum on August 11, 2016, 01:46:11 PM
One thing that has changed and is costing Trump support is the size and song of the choir of Republicans who are against him.  Now they are singing that they are willing to vote Clinton to stop Trump.  During the primary, many were extremely opposed to Trump but didn't have to go so far as to suggest Hillary was better.  Now she's the only realistic NeverTrump option.  Given how united the Republican machine has been in opposition to Hillary in the past, these defections are extremely telling.  It's like they are saying "All that stuff was just playing to win, now it *censored*ing matters." 

Her campaign gets credit for being mild enough not to make this impossible, I guess. 
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: scifibum on August 11, 2016, 01:51:26 PM
Sorry for the multiple posts in a row.

Greg, you are right that uniting with Obama shortly after she lost to him was a brilliant move that won over much of Obama's supporters to her this time around.  I don't expect that Sanders will be able to follow suit, but if Clinton appoints him as Secretary of Education or Labor I'll be impressed and pleased.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: D.W. on August 11, 2016, 01:54:24 PM
Do you think he'd take the appointment?  I mean, if it was something he genuinely felt needed done and thought he could contribute... probably.  But I don't think he's in the same position of looking to build up his resume for "next time".
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Wayward Son on August 11, 2016, 02:04:00 PM
Quote
Within a very short time after Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton, she has led a campaign effort that has absolutely devastated Donald Trump and the prospects that he will win the Presidency.

In the immortal words of Yogi Berra: "It ain't over till it's over."

Or, perhaps more appropriately, the immortal words of James Thurber: "Don't count your boobies until they are hatched." :)

(Remember, Hillary is still enjoying the post-convention bump in her polls.)
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: scifibum on August 11, 2016, 02:53:06 PM
Do you think he'd take the appointment?  I mean, if it was something he genuinely felt needed done and thought he could contribute... probably.  But I don't think he's in the same position of looking to build up his resume for "next time".

I think he might feel like he could accomplish good things in either of those departments, but maybe not.  I don't think I've heard him say anything about whether he'd like a position in the new admin.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 11, 2016, 02:59:02 PM
I think he might feel like he could accomplish good things in either of those departments, but maybe not.  I don't think I've heard him say anything about whether he'd like a position in the new admin.

In a funny way I don't really think his opinion on the matter would be the biggest issue; Hillary's would be. Frankly I think she's bats**t insane not to have already publicly offered him a conciliatory post in her administration or cabinet in order to bring his voters into the fold and make peace with people who feel Bernie's influence will be lost in her administration. He absolutely should have been invited, and if he was willing to back down and endorse Hillary for the sake of the party I'm sure he'd take this job too for the same reason. There is no good strategic reason not to have tried to include him directly in her campaign. It's just a mistake, plain and simple. Even if Hillary isn't ready to announce who will have what position in her government, she could at least have said he'd have a prominent position of some sort to make use of his insight and his influence.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: scifibum on August 11, 2016, 03:09:26 PM
I think it would be smart of her to make the offer, but maybe he's not interested and she doesn't want to be turned down by him in public.  Maybe it's still on the way - before the nomination was secured, it might have looked like an effort to buy him out, and it's early yet.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: D.W. on August 11, 2016, 03:10:07 PM
Quote
Frankly I think she's bats**t insane not to have already publicly offered him a conciliatory post in her administration or cabinet in order to bring his voters into the fold and make peace with people who feel Bernie's influence will be lost in her administration.
Think of the repercussions if he snubbed her offer though?  That could be worse.  Or at least encourage all the Never Hillary crowd.

In fact, maybe she did, and he declined but for the good of the election they both agreed to keep that under wraps.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 11, 2016, 03:23:32 PM
Think of the repercussions if he snubbed her offer though?  That could be worse.  Or at least encourage all the Never Hillary crowd.

In fact, maybe she did, and he declined but for the good of the election they both agreed to keep that under wraps.

Agreed that if she made the offer it would be in private, and we'd never have heard about it if the answer was "no." So in that sense I guess it's possible this happened...but I wonder why Bernie would say no. As Secretary of State or Defence I could see someone like Sanders not wanting to butt heads with the President, with the intelligence agencies, etc. But as Secretary of Labor or the Interior or something it seems like it would be a more low-profile job where one could just do the job. It's not like Sen. Leahy is going anywhere, so Vermont would still be taken care of in Bernie's absence. Ah well, wait and see.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: D.W. on August 11, 2016, 03:33:16 PM
Let's just assume that the "I want a political revolution" was more than a tactic or catch phrase for a moment.  Let's assume he knows that he can't bide his time for 8 years, build up his credibility in the party and 'call dibs' on the 8 years after that.

Why would he take the job?  It would have to be a pretty tempting offer.  Now maybe I'm being the naive one, but I don't think a token position or signing up for a job just to bring in his flock to support what he wanted to revolt against, makes even a lick of sense.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 11, 2016, 03:49:49 PM
Now maybe I'm being the naive one, but I don't think a token position or signing up for a job just to bring in his flock to support what he wanted to revolt against, makes even a lick of sense.

What you say makes sense, and it boils down to whether someone has an all-or-nothing attitude towards reform, or whether they have the mentality of "I can't change the system right now from the outside, but from the inside I can do some little good that will help." That would be the reasoning, as far as I can tell. It would have little to do with helping Clinton; you're right about that. But it would help Clinton, and in turn it would give him a chance to help the country to some extent. That's how I see it, anyhow. I don't think he has political aspirations, per se, so if he saw the job as merely a stepping stone to something else I agree he might not bother with it.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: scifibum on August 11, 2016, 04:20:31 PM
He talks a lot about labor and education, and while the reforms he wants depend on the legislature, he could accomplish some improvement as an administrator. 

Perhaps more importantly, he could structure data collection and reporting to illuminate problems that need Congress's attention.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: LetterRip on August 11, 2016, 05:34:13 PM
I suspect he is more interested in a powerful position in the Senate, and by helping other Senators get elected he can broker that into a powerful Senate chair.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 11, 2016, 08:10:26 PM
Quote
Within a very short time after Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton, she has led a campaign effort that has absolutely devasted Donald Trump and the prospects that he will win the Presidency. 

I don't feel her campaign has much, if anything, to do with Trump's self-destruction. I will give her credit where it's due: unlike her opponent, she has the good sense to know when to get out of the way and allow her opponent to drive off a cliff.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: AI Wessex on August 11, 2016, 09:05:34 PM
I don't think Sanders has any remote interest in a cabinet position in her Administration.  I also don't think there's even a remote chance that Schumer will offer him a committee chairmanship.  It takes more than caucusing with Democrats to be part of the inner circle.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 11, 2016, 09:49:35 PM
I'm going to first disagree about her eviscerating anybody least of all Trump and second maybe most of you were sexist but I've got nothing against her based on the fact that she's a woman. I still like Sarah Palin and last time I checked (can't assume anything nowadays) she was a woman. The reason people don't support or agree with Hillary, people like me at least, is simply her politics. That's the same reason I don't support Obama. It's not because he's black but because his policies are a failure and because he has achieved his aim of weakening America.

Now Bill Clinton, I personally didn't like at all because he's a rapist. Not much to do with most of his policies because they weren't really all that bad. Sure I can probably point to a few that I disagreed with but by and large America was strong and a success back then which was also a compliment to the Republican Congress but also to be fair, a testament to Bill Clinton's willingness to compromise for the good of the country. And Bill Clinton is white and a male and yet I loath him most of all.

It's really looking like most of the accusations of sexism and racism coming from the left are simply based on projections of their own racist and sexist feelings.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Pete at Home on August 11, 2016, 11:12:51 PM
Some day, the US will have a female leader whose entire foundation doesn't rely on Greg's all too typical Emperor's new vagina arguments.  Greg starts this entire thread with the premise "if you disagree with me, you are a sexist."  Someday, we'll have a female leader whose accomplishments and speeches speak for themselves, rather than "being the first woman x and first woman y" being her primary accomplishments.

This is not that day.

Within a very short time after Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton, she has led a campaign effort that has absolutely devasted Donald Trump and the prospects that he will win the Presidency. I suspect that some people will not give her any credit, instead asserting that Trump's fall was inevitable and she's just a weak candidate who got lucky. And I think that way of thinking may be because she is a female politician.

Look at the evidence - Trump had previously ripped through a field of 15 other Republican candidates.  Over a year, his failure was supposed to be inevitable, and yet somehow that never happened. And then in just a number of weeks after Sanders endorsed her and she could focus on Trump, he appears to be heading towards the biggest Republican loss since the 1960's. And it is notable that many of the ways in which Hillary has done such damage to his campaign has been through approaches that don't fit in with our stereotypical view of what it is to be a powerfgul male political figure.

Part of her strength is the strong support from Barack (and Michelle) Obama, her bitter rival from the 2008 campaign.  How did she get there with him, and his coalition? Well, after a bitter loss, she got up and left her ego at the door, serving him loyally as Secretary of State. That's unusual behavior for a leading national politician, and one that won the loyalty of many Obama supporters.  She had a thorough and diligently planned convention, attacking the smears against her character with testimonials from a lifetime on service to regular human beings in ways that are different from traditional politicians (you may not be swayed by her personal involvement with the health concerns of her constituents after 9/11, but her lifetime of actions were persuasive to many moderates). She was very conciliatory to the Bernie Sanders coalition, more so than a number of other politicians would be. She picked Tim Kaine as a VP candidate, an interesting choice because she was both prioritizing governing experience over campaign cachet and yet also she did have a planned niche for his campaigning skills. 

And someone had to plan the political attacks and traps for Trump.  The Khans did not show up at the Democratic convention by accident. There has been a huge effort expended in get-out-the-vote. She is implementing close to a 50 state strategy (a current lead in Georgia? Utah close?). Of course she is not flawless as a candidate. She lacks the same level of personal charisma as other candidates, and she has sufferred some damage as part of the 25 years of attack. But that's what makes her current efforts demonstrate considerable political skill.

Donald Trump has gotten kudos over the past year for the success of his innovative campaign approach. Bernie Sanders has gotten kudos for his insurgent campaign in the democratic primaries. But I suspect that Hillary Clinton will not get anything near the credit given to them despite beating them both.

And I believe that one reason for that is that she is a woman.

And since that's how you framed the entire argument, there's no room here for discussing anything other than Hillary's genitals.

Shame on you.

Pete out, in search of a more intelligent discussion.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 12, 2016, 02:40:49 AM
Pete, your argument is lazy because it ignores what I actually say. Please present your argument that the fact that Hillary Clinton does not deserve any credit for the fact that Trump's campaign has been torpedoed for the same kind of nonsense that he has been getting away with for a year - I won't argue you are wrong because you are sexist, I'll argue you are wrong because you are. And Cherry, I did not stipulate you had to like Hillary Clinton in any way.

My assertion was that many people will not give Hillary Clinton credit for her political success in taking down Donald Trump. For 12 months, Trump has clobbered all of his opponents. Within a month of the Sanders endorsement, Clinton has had tremendous success relative to Trump. Politically, she has essentially won the election in a month - this is masterful politics. And she will get less credit than Sanders or Trump got for lesser accomplishments. 

Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 12, 2016, 03:55:12 AM
It's yet to be seen whether or not she has taken down Trump. And I'll also disagree with her DNC performance being a great success too. Her speech may have been great, as were the other speeches, but she as the candidate is responsible for more than that. The American flags were hidden away on the first day and plenty of people noticed. She has disavowed Mateen because of his love for radical Islam and yet she let him play a prominent role in the convention.  The apple apparently doesn't fall far from the tree. The mother of Michael Brown was there and that guy is probably the worst martyr for a cause you could find, outside of the ones ISIS uses. He assaulted and robbed a poor shop keeper and it was caught on tape right before he assaulted a police officer who did his job and defended himself and the public from a violent criminal. The continuing Muslim terrorist attacks in Europe, and in America for that matter, make her insistence on subjecting more Americans to certain death at the hands of ISIS terror cells, sympathizers, and converts that will inevitably infiltrate in with the refugee population seem like someone who cares more for foreigners than she does for Americans. A lofty ideal to be sure, but one that will cost lives some Americans may not be willing to sacrifice. And let's not forget the Clinton body count that just recently rose by two,  along with her other mistakes are all adding up quickly and when they are taken in their totality come election time the electorate may well decide that Trump doesn't look so bad after all. I don't see how any of that has anything to do with her being a woman though.  After all, Obama is just as bad. We also have to wonder if her strong personal performances are taking a toll on her health. Wasn't that some sort of huge deal for the media when it came to McCain and releasing his health records?

Needless to say I don't believe these polls either. Many people are justifiably concerned for their safety when it comes to expressing their support for Trump as we just saw with the Hillary supporter who got into an argument when a Trumpeter in a bar so went out to his car to get his gun and come back in and ended up shooting the guy in the leg. People can get spit on, have their property vandalized, and of course lose friends and have their relatives ghost and fade them because of how crazy this election is making so many people. We saw an example at the college where students freaked out and said they got scared when Trump 2016 was written in chalk on a sidewalk.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 12, 2016, 05:35:08 AM
Quote
Please present your argument that the fact that Hillary Clinton does not deserve any credit for the fact that Trump's campaign has been torpedoed for the same kind of nonsense that he has been getting away with for a year 

I find the facts you have presented rather weak evidence of her success in "taking down" Trump. Trump has been entirely consistent throughout the primaries and the general campaign. He hasn't been "trapped" by anyone except himself.

Assuming, for the moment, that Trump is as damaged as he appears (By the way, I agree with Cherry that this is not certain yet) I'll tell you why it's different from during the primaries, since that seems to be your main point (look how he wiped the floor with all those Republicans, but is now breaking his teeth on Hillary):

1) The primary process is obviously alot different from a general election campaign. Trump feeds on victory, on validation, and each victory allowed his campaign to snowball. There is no such feedback validation loop in a long general election campaign.

2) Republican primaries are an entirely different demographic. Obviously his base of support lies in the disaffected of the Republican party. This is not the same group as in a general election and his belief that he could tap into a portion of the disaffected Bernie camp was probably a pipe dream

3) People have realized, finally, that he is exactly what he appears to be.

Let me elaborate on #3.

I admit I was an apologist for this man. I wouldn't say I liked him, but I admired the way he spat in the face of the media, turned cynical party politics on its head. Alot of us always knew he was a liar, but we assumed he would change his tune once he had successfully won the primary, to start acting presidential, to dial back on some of his whackier promises. We expected him to act rationally, the way a Hillary Clinton or most other politicians would act. What we didn't get until recently (and what I think the mainstream of the Republican establishment has finally woken up to) is that it wasn't an act. I'm not talking about him being a racist or such - it's much worse than that. Yes, Trump is certainly a liar, but not a rational one. Trump's lies are actually pathological. The man is almost certainly mentally ill or at a minimum, has major personality defects that compel him to certain self-destructive behaviours. I happen to think he is a megalomaniac, also in a clinical sense.

This is why this man should never be commander and chief.

But getting back to the original point - I see little evidence that Hillary "orchestrated" anything. Trump has destroyed himself. (assuming, and we all hope, he is actually as "destroyed" as he seems)

Regarding Khan, if it wasn't him it would have been something else. But in any event, I see little "genius" in Hillary doing what any politician with a brain in her scull would have done. She exploited an OBVIOUS weakness. Assuming she sought out Khan to speak at the convention (rather than Khan coming to her and asking to do so - and I'd like to confirm which way it was for this discussion), that's hardly genius in my book. It's about as obvious as it gets.  Have you seen Hillary's commercials? Most of the ones I have seen are just videos of Trump saying crazy *censored*. Seriously. I haven't seen a single one where Clinton even makes an appearance in weeks. Her ads are just Trump all the time. Again, because HIllary isn't an idiot - she's letting this guy destroy himself.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 12, 2016, 11:35:14 AM
jasonr, I agree that general election audience is different from the Republican party audience.  But the steps that Hillary has taken to undermine Trump could have been taken by anyone - the Khans had publicly discussed their son as early as November 2015. Saying that Hillary's performance is not noteworthy because she exploited an obvious weakness is inconsistent with the fact that 15 previous Republican candidates failed to exploit the exact same obvious weakness.

The other Republican candidates were frightened by Trump, and when some of them did try to stand up to him, he swatted away their efforts and made them look pathetic in the process.  It runs against gender stereotypes, but Hillary Clinton projects more strength in standing up to Trump than any of the Republicans, and she does so without breaking a sweat. Those Republican candidates were said to be an embarassment of riches, but when Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz tried to attack Donald Trump, he made they pay immediately for it.

So can I hear any appreciation for the political skills and stature of Hillary Clinton for her efforts? For doing what many other candidates were unable to do?


========
Cherry, I actually think Hillary's speech at the convention was not strong. She's not a charismatic speaker for orations like that.  Let me also agree that the election is not certain - a lot happens over the last three months, but also that the next effect of the past month has been the most damaging to a major candidate since the attacks on Michael Dukakis in 1988.

 
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 12, 2016, 11:52:43 AM
The other Republican candidates were frightened by Trump, and when some of them did try to stand up to him, he swatted away their efforts and made them look pathetic in the process.

Maybe it's because they actually were pathetic and he merely pointed it out?
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: D.W. on August 12, 2016, 12:00:28 PM
Quote
So can I hear any appreciation for the political skills and stature of Hillary Clinton for her efforts? For doing what many other candidates were unable to do?
What did SHE do?  Cite some examples.

I don't think any of us disagree with the timing.  What we disagree with is how much credit she deserves for Trump's decline.  I'd even be interested in a hypothetical of, If another candidate was the nominee rather than Hillary they could not have done X, Y or Z like she did.

You see an effect and have pointed to Hillary as the cause without any backup.  Further you started this out by suggesting that the only reason (or a prevalent one) to not agree that she is the cause, and fail to give her the credit due to her is sexism.  Pete's response, while more of a rebuke to short circuit your flawed way of looking at things, is legitimate.  Your made an assertion not an argument.  Care to expand on it or are you just proselytizing for your candidate of choice?

"I'm winning, there for I'm brilliant, a genius, I'm fantastic!"
That sounds like the other candidate to me.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 12, 2016, 12:44:17 PM
Greg, I think your points are adequately addressed by 1) and 2). Bashing Republican establishment candidates obviously appealed to a very large portion of the Republican electorate during the primaries. There is also Fenring's point - that they really were pathetic and weak candidates. I don't think bashing Hillary was going to get Trump very far with a general election campaign - after all what was he going to say about the woman that mainstream Republicans hadn't been saying for years?

You still haven't addressed what Hillary has DONE to bring Trump down. Her strategy as far as I can see has been to step aside and just let him do his thing. The most devastating blows of late haven't even come from Clinton but from fellow Republicans. Yes, Trump drew alot of that kind of fire during the primaries - but you'll agree that when your own party turns on you and calls you unfit AFTER being annointed nominee, that's a pretty different kettle of fish.

Regarding Khan, I think that either Khan recruited himself (in which case Hillary would have been a moron not to let him speak) or Hillary recruited him. In the first scenario you will agree no particular credit belongs to Clinton. In the second scenario, she deserves some credit, but again, hardly something that only a brilliant politician would have thought to do. I doubt Khan was some kind of trap - more likely they used him because it exposed an obvious weakness in Trump. What happened afterward when Trump attacked Khan's family was just gravy.

For the record, I never doubted Clinton's skill as a politician or her intellect. I just don't think Trump has come close to testing that skill or intellect. The man was a time bomb whose fuse has almost run out. Clinton is just waiting for him to blow up.

And by the way: the suggestion that somehow we aren't giving her credit for "taking down" Trump because Clinton is a woman is both insulting and laughably wrong.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: NobleHunter on August 12, 2016, 12:55:01 PM
It strikes me as one of those campaigns where a general can look like a genius just by not screwing up. There's no need for innovative tactics or brilliant maneuvers, just a solid refusal to make mistakes. It's the kind of thing that sounds easy and simple but represents more skill than is readily apparent.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 12, 2016, 01:16:53 PM
First, do we agree that she gets at least as much credit for how her campaign is run as we would give to male candidates leading their campaign? If anything, she tends to me more focused on hands-on details than average for Presidential candidates, and on that assumption, I am including major efforts of her campaign as part of what she has done.

These include the aforementioned effort to come from a strong rivalry with Barack Obama to an unusual demonstration of loyalty as Secretary of State that even won over a number of Obama campaign operatives who were initially resistant to her. She learned substantially from the weaknesses in her campaign team in 2008 (Mark Penn and others), and has assembled a more formidable staff composed by the best of her previous campaigns plus key Obama campaign people.

She has been running to the left on policy, but with a tone and sense of respect more typically perceived as being on the right. So she's established without controversy a position on free college for those making under $125K and a $15 minimum wage without significant Republican push-back.  She's dealt with the Sanders movement with an above average level of patience, resulting not only in a historically large percentage of Sanders supporters saying that they will vote for her, but she has even been well positioned in that the residual attacks from the farthest to the left (or merely the most bitter on the left) will mostly serve to provide ideological protection for the fact that this platform is the most progressive one for the democrats in 40 years.

The emergence of Khizr Khan demonstrates the skill and effectiveness of the Clinton Campaign. Khan, who was not a registered Democrat, was interviewed in a blog called vocativ on December 8, 2015 after not speaking publically about his son for years (see the full story in
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/seven-minutes-that-shook-the-convention-214126 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/seven-minutes-that-shook-the-convention-214126)). A few days later a Clinton staffer contacted him, and that's what led to his strategic placement on the final day of the convention in early August 2016.  From a political perspective, this demonstrates that Hillary Clinton has built an exceptionally capable political campaign. Consider the kudos that have gone to Sanders and Trump earlier in this political season for the effectiveness of their campaigns, and note in comparison how little credit Hillary gets for the effectiveness of her campaign.

She has coordinated the efforts of many voices within the democratic party (and a number of independents and Republicans), both at the convention and afterwards. The convention itself did not do a "Sistah Soulja" distancing from controversial voices on the left (including some such as Michael Brown's mother), but they included those voices with a rather remarkable message that emphasized both the shared human value of mothers grieving for their children (regardless of their prior actions) with a religious faith and a message of hope to address the challenges collectively rather than by inciting more hatred. And she came to this not by brainstorming staff members in a campaign room, but rather by a real-life interaction she had in meeting with them back in November 2015 where she brought the mothers together as a group (they had not all been in contact before) and gave them suggestions on how to best make their voice heard.

I will decrement her performance by noting that she has been weak at dealing with the email scandal (or more specifically, the 7 Benghazi Congressional attacks, one of which uncovered the 30,000 emails, which led to the questions over classification), but she has been hurt but not significantly harmed by the assault (whereas Kerry, Gore, Dean, Dukakis, etc. all had no answer for the Republican attacks against them). And she turned back the Benghazi scandals in her favor by troucing Gowdy and the Republicans in the 11 hour hearing.   
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 12, 2016, 01:27:12 PM
And jasonr,

My language was unclear enough to create a misunderstanding, let me clarifiy one major meta-point. I am not saying that everyone who disagrees with the proficiency of her political campaign is doing so because she is a woman (because there is a great diversity of opinion between people, and they reach conclusions for all sorts of reasons), but I am saying that the aggregate level of appreciation for her political skills is lower because a subset of the population will instinctively explain away accomplishments of a woman that they would not similarly discount for a man. A simplistic example of this is in the NBC Olympics coverage, where they have several times described female Olympics medal-winners in terms of their husbands or non-athletic contexts - while they did not similarly describe male Olympics medal-winners in terms of their wives etc.

In terms of Hillary, the sexism comes from not judging her accomplishments to the same standard that has been used to ascribe credit to the campaigns of male candidates.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 12, 2016, 01:35:50 PM
Oh, and I just read a statistic that will help to calibrate exactly where the race is today.  If you include Minnesota (which has barely been polled this year, but trends with Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia), then Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump by at least 10% in states that account for 273 electoral votes - enough to make her the next President ofthe United States.

No guarantees, and 3 months is a long time, but that is a historic lead for this phase in the campaign. And it's not because the economy and the world situation are doing terrifically (they are mildly positive, but not enough to sway an election).  And it is not because Hillary Clinton has unique charisma to connect with people in big speeches. It is because she is running a highly competent political campaign.  This is a remarkable turn-around from what people were predicting about her just a few months ago.

And blaming it all on Trump is inconsistent with the fact that the batsh-t crazy things he says today are not appreciably more batsh-t crazy than the things he has been saying for over a year, but only Hillary Clinton's campaign has been able to make him pay for that.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Pete at Home on August 12, 2016, 02:13:47 PM
Pete, your argument is lazy because it ignores what I actually say. Please present your argument that the fact that Hillary Clinton does not deserve any credit for the fact that Trump's campaign has been torpedoed for the same kind of nonsense that he has been getting away with for a year -x

Why would I argue something I don't believe?  I fully agree with you that Hillary has done a better job than the other Republican candidates at eviscerating Trump, but that's incredibly weak praise, Greg.  The Republican Candidates were for the most part, nimrods, with the exception being Fiorina who acted like a nimrod to compete with nimrods, and Kasich, who never had money to get the message out. 

What Hillary has yet to do is to eviscerate Trump to a greater degree than he has eviscerated himself. 

If Trump wasn't a piece of cake to beat, then why did Clinton himself recommend that Trump run in this election?

Face it -- Clinton's numbers go up every time she shuts up and lets Trump do the talking. 

Aside from the shallow sexist setup of your OP and Title, I'm appalled by the shallowness of your assumption that how someone "eviscerates" one's rivals in what amounts to a reality television competition is something worthy of serious attention in a race for president of the United States.

Now that you've established that Hillary can beat Trump in a pissing contest, why don't we talk about something that doesn't insult your intelligence and mine?
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 12, 2016, 02:13:59 PM
And blaming it all on Trump is inconsistent with the fact that the batsh-t crazy things he says today are not appreciably more batsh-t crazy than the things he has been saying for over a year, but only Hillary Clinton's campaign has been able to make him pay for that.

I never came off the fence on Trump being a ringer in this election cycle, with the idea of getting the Republican Nominee to stake a political position the Democrats could make him pay for in the general. As Trump did to Romney in 2012. Only this time, the ringer became the nominee through a twist in the political tides.

Anybody can look like a genius when running against a Straw Man, gender is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: D.W. on August 12, 2016, 02:19:40 PM
Quote
She has been running to the left on policy, but with a tone and sense of respect more typically perceived as being on the right. So she's established without controversy a position on free college for those making under $125K and a $15 minimum wage without significant Republican push-back.  She's dealt with the Sanders movement with an above average level of patience, resulting not only in a historically large percentage of Sanders supporters saying that they will vote for her, but she has even been well positioned in that the residual attacks from the farthest to the left (or merely the most bitter on the left) will mostly serve to provide ideological protection for the fact that this platform is the most progressive one for the democrats in 40 years.
This entire paragraph is just jaw dropping to me.  I’ll admit, I’m on the bitter end of the scale but my God man!  If not for the seriousness of Bernie’s challenge and the pressure from his supporters the first part would never have happened.  Would things have improved in that direction?  Yes, but we wouldn’t have landed as far left as we did without the contested race.  So yes, it is one of the most progressive platforms.  For that I thank the losing candidate.  I also thank Trump for giving her the option to not pivot back to a centrist position as soon as she got the nomination.  May she stay the course and keep it the most progressive platform all the way up to her inauguration. 

Your characterization of “an above average level of patience” makes me want to weep.  She had the disposition of a scolding parent pretty much from the start, from my perspective she just oozed disdain and disapproval.  The historically large percentage of Sanders supporters crossing over (compared to what?) are by and large voting against Trump and the cesspit he’d try to transform our country into, not for her.  Don’t kid yourself.  I think she’ll be a fine president.  I think she’ll pick up the baton effortlessly as Obama comes in for the handoff and we’ll have another 8 years of business as usual.  It’s a pretty damn decent consolation prize.

Otherwise, that was a much better attempt to make your point.  I’m not buying it, but it’s better than “pick up the pom-pom’s or you are a sexist”.  :P  Your story about the Olympic announcer I would also note went viral and sparked instant outrage precisely because it was such a ridiculous outlier.  When these troglodytes reveal themselves we are swift to slap them down.  I see it as a demonstration that things are greatly improved rather than proof things are still awful when it comes to sexism.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 12, 2016, 02:29:20 PM
A lot of Bernie's popularity came through online awareness, as he was hand-down easily the landslide favorite of forums populated largely by younger people. Once he accepted defeat in the race I saw an absolute avalanche of social-media messages about how Bernie supporters needed to switch to Clinton to stop Trump. I have, to date, seen zero posts on social media, viral or otherwise, about how good Clinton is. No one is even pretending to adopt that position for the most part. Every message is "Trump must be stopped", "Trump is a neo-Nazi", "stop the idiot", and "we have to fight the real evil." Things like that. And I do credit the Clinton campaign for part of this because it's basically common knowledge that she is spending $$$ on an army of internet activists to post and propagate material. That's all well and good, and smart of her to take that approach. But even the approach of her shills is to point at how Trump must not be allowed to win. Which basically just reaffirms what people here like jasonr are saying. None of her sudden 'popularity' now is pro-Hillary, it's anti-Trump. Hey man, whatever works. But don't go and act like it's because of her great reputation. Even most pro-Hillary shill posts I see say things like "Hey guys, we all know Hillary isn't the best, but we need to step up and not let Trump ruin our country." The few posts I do see in places like Reddit that are out-and-out praise of her tend to be laughed down as paid advertising.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Pete at Home on August 12, 2016, 02:33:24 PM
Simply look at the vast array of money laid out against Trump right now.  Trump gets first credit for eviscerating himself, and Hillary comes in third, but #2 is simply the money and power influence, mostly from the Koch brothers, who keep pulling strings to get their pawns to come out against Trump.

How much money to defeat a straw man?
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: D.W. on August 12, 2016, 02:38:16 PM
To Fenring's point.  I do give her and her campaign credit for promoting the, "Don't do it for me, do it to stop Trump" line.

Ditching "I'm with Her" and picking up the "Stronger Together" slogan is smart.  Or at least, good damage control.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 12, 2016, 03:49:38 PM
Fenring, one of the current aspects of how we get our news is that it can be tailored based on the individual. On my Facebook feed I get postings from those deeply in the Trump camp as well as a barrage (still) of Bernie or bust comments (note: I also make it a point to have dinner with as many of these friends I debate with and to post an image of us smiling, to humanize the discourse).

Your comment below is very different from my experience, and may reflect how social media filters to you:
Quote
I have, to date, seen zero posts on social media, viral or otherwise, about how good Clinton is.

Here's one article proporting to show why Clinton support is just emerging on Facebook (simple version; many of her supporters don't like nasty responses from trolls)http://fortune.com/2016/08/11/hillary-clinton-support-facebook/ (http://fortune.com/2016/08/11/hillary-clinton-support-facebook/)

But also scrolling down my Facebook feed from just today, I see a variety of articles reposted arguing aspects of the case for Hillary Clinton. Here's some from sites I have heard of before
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/race-activism-and-hillary-clinton-at-wellesley (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/race-activism-and-hillary-clinton-at-wellesley)
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/while-wooing-republicans-clinton-sticks-progressive-policy-n628501 (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/while-wooing-republicans-clinton-sticks-progressive-policy-n628501)

Here are others, from sites I have not heard of previously
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/hillary-gop-smears/ (http://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/hillary-gop-smears/)
https://theringer.com/what-to-remember-when-the-trump-comeback-begins-1db1c4698eef#.wk6slcqbf (https://theringer.com/what-to-remember-when-the-trump-comeback-begins-1db1c4698eef#.wk6slcqbf)

Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 12, 2016, 03:56:54 PM
Fenring, one of the current aspects of how we get our news is that it can be tailored based on the individual. On my Facebook feed I get postings from those deeply in the Trump camp as well as a barrage (still) of Bernie or bust comments (note: I also make it a point to have dinner with as many of these friends I debate with and to post an image of us smiling, to humanize the discourse).

A lot of my FB 'friends' are of the liberal persuasion, but not all. I live in a liberal city and, being in the arts, have a lot of liberal contacts. So you're right that an absence of pro-Trump (or pro-GOP) elements in my feed would figure into this. But one of your points is that Hillary managed to sway the Sanders crowd over to her, and my comments were largely related to that point. I know a bunch of people who were Bernie supporters, and the refrain of late without exception has been the civic duty to oppose Trump. FB, however, is not my only online media source, but it's just an example of things I see being passed around by people I actually know. I don't know any liberals IRL, however, who are pro-Hillary, as in, they actively believe in her. It always seems to be a lesser-of-evils position. I know there are real Hillary supporters, of course, but I don't think they populate social media as much due to their demographic. I also think that by and large they were going to support her anyhow regardless of how the GOP primaries went or whether Sanders even existed. So what we're talking about, really, is the Bernie crowd moving over to her (which I've addressed in my previous comment), and on-the-fence Trump supporters who may be jumping ship. The latter group can certainly be accounted for by Trump's own actions.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 12, 2016, 04:20:05 PM
I disagree that Trump people jumping ship is unrelated to her campaign efforts. As I said earlier, her conventione created a community-based, optimistic, patriotic, and faith-infused tone that was used to promote progressive policies.  She didn't make the policy pronoucements the main focus, but at the same time she didn't in any way back down from what I believe we all agree are historically progressive policy proposals. 

She has taken on two traditionally dangerous political positions that Republicans have repeatedly use to devastate Democratic candidates (gun control, support for Muslims), and she has done so in such a masterful way that they are strengths for her and not vulnerabilities (and she has done this exceptional framing of treatment of Muslims in a year that has seen an above average level of attacks by people who are - or proclaimed that they were - acting in the name of Islam). 

 
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 12, 2016, 04:34:32 PM
She has taken on two traditionally dangerous political positions that Republicans have repeatedly use to devastate Democratic candidates (gun control, support for Muslims), and she has done so in such a masterful way that they are strengths for her and not vulnerabilities

I kind of think Republicans have their hands full right now arguing about Trump. They haven't even begun their attempt to devastate her yet. Her best case scenario is that they remain focused on Trump and don't have time for her. But if and when the right settles down in support of Trump and turn their sights towards the coming election, we'll see how masterfully she can defend her 'progressive' policies. I'm not actually sure what's so progressive about them, other than having adopted a couple of Bernie's talking points. Overall I agree with D.W. that a Clinton Presidency will be looking to be 4-8 years of no change. It would, in fact, be kind of strange to attack her on 'progressive' grounds, since by all rights she's an extreme right-wing Democrat in some areas (such as foreign policy and security) and centrist in others (such as economic and social). The GOP may eventually go after her with the usual anti-left stuff, but to be honest I think they're going to change things up and go after her rather than her platform in this one.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: D.W. on August 12, 2016, 04:39:46 PM
To her credit, those traits centrist/right can overcome the knee jerk hate the Republicans seem to have for her personally.  At least in the face of Trump representing them or stealing their identity and wiping his ass with it.

The patriotic, pro military flavor of the convention is not something I expect Sanders could have pulled off.  SoS creds compared to Sander's shall we say, less interventionist tendencies is a pretty stark contrast.  She and/or her campaign leveraged them expertly.  Trumps then fumbled the same tools as if he was going above and beyond to hand her the ball didn't hurt either.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 12, 2016, 04:49:58 PM
Quote
It would, in fact, be kind of strange to attack her on 'progressive' grounds, since by all rights she's an extreme right-wing Democrat in some areas (such as foreign policy and security) and centrist in others (such as economic and social).

Here's her top 10 policy proposals as determined by politifact based on her website and public comments. Clearly, each of these will be challenging to implement, but the question here is the degree to which these are progressive or centrist policies, and they seem pretty darn progressive to me:

1. "For families making less than $125,000 a year, we will eliminate tuition" for in-state students at public colleges.
2. "Pass comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship that keeps families together."
3. "Stand up to Republican-led attacks on this landmark (health care) law—and build on its success to bring the promise of affordable health care to more people and make a ‘public option’ possible."
4. "We will do everything we can to overturn Citizens United."
5. "Fighting for equal pay."
6. "I will not raise middle-class taxes."
7. "Say no to attacks on working families and no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership."
8. "We’re going to increase the federal minimum wage."
9. "As president, Hillary will expand background checks to more gun sales."
10. "Clinton would increase federal infrastructure funding by $275 billion over a five-year period."

See analysis of specific policy details at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/22/hillary-clintons-top-10-campaign-promises/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/22/hillary-clintons-top-10-campaign-promises/))

Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 12, 2016, 05:03:57 PM
Some of those are simply status quo, such as 'fighting for equal pay' and standing by ACA. I actually disbelieve that she will stand against the TPP but I look forward to being proved wrong on that one. The tuition and minimum wage things were concessions to the Sanders camp but at least they're there, which is fine.

The one thing that stands out in the list is Citizens United. If she actually does do something to overturn it then I'll be the first to sing her praises about that. I'll be very surprised if she does since the path to her Presidency was laid by it being the way it is right now. A politician can go renegade on the people that sponsored the candidacy, but there are extreme risks that go along with doing so. I'll believe this one when I see it.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 12, 2016, 05:05:38 PM
I don't think her gun position is going to work out that well for her. I see more traction on the internet every day for the reality that her Supreme Court justice will put liberals in the majority to overturn Heller and eviscerate the 2nd Amendment. She can say whatever she wants and everyone can insist she isn't for banning guns but the fact is all of that's irrelevant because the President doesn't have that power anyway. The Supreme Court does. So the only thing that matters is her nominee and history shows that every single liberal Supreme Court justice would decide to ban and confiscate guns, every time. The last time Democrats went after guns they lost elections big time. We always hear stories about how Obama has been the greatest American gun salesman in history, and I have a feeling the vast majority of those gun buyers aren't going to vote for someone who is going to appoint to the Supreme Court the justice who is going to take them away. The trick is just getting those people to understand, again, that her personal position on the issue doesn't matter in the least, and as the new quote I keep hearing goes, "It's the Supreme Court, stupid". Trump put out his list of potential nominees and as far as I know the NRA doesn't have a problem with any of them.

If people think the tide has turned and most voters are for European and Australian style gun confiscation and banning, this election will prove it one way or the other.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 12, 2016, 05:07:46 PM
She can overturn Citizens United simply with her Supreme Court nominee the same way she can void the 2nd Amendment as it is currently understood. I think those are both promises she can and will keep. The liberals on the Supreme Court will not hesitate to fast track cases to do exactly that.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 12, 2016, 05:11:12 PM
Fenring, read the details. She's not just standing by the ACA, she says she is going to fight for creation of a "public option". This is not a small thing.

And with respect to pay, she has specific plan to address a real problem that women face with opay equity - From Politifact: "On the subject of closing the pay gap for men and women, Clinton is advocating for the Paycheck Fairness Act, which attempts to make it easier for individuals to challenge sex-based pay discrimination. Clinton introduced a version of this bill as a senator in 2007"
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Pete at Home on August 12, 2016, 05:19:34 PM
I disagree that Trump people jumping ship is unrelated to her campaign efforts.

There's no question that the people jumping ship because of Koch brothers funding.  Since securing Koch brothers funding both direct and indirect while they continue to decline to actually endorse her (which would be the kiss of death) is her "campaign efforts," then I agree.  But again, why is this a good thing?

She's a Clinton.  Of course she runs a strong campaign.  Doesn't remotely mean she'd be a good president.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 12, 2016, 05:56:47 PM
Fenring, read the details. She's not just standing by the ACA, she says she is going to fight for creation of a "public option". This is not a small thing.

Ok, I don't have a lot invested (intellectually) on the specifics of that so I'll take your word for it.

Quote
And with respect to pay, she has specific plan to address a real problem that women face with opay equity - From Politifact: "On the subject of closing the pay gap for men and women, Clinton is advocating for the Paycheck Fairness Act, which attempts to make it easier for individuals to challenge sex-based pay discrimination. Clinton introduced a version of this bill as a senator in 2007"

Having read a lot on the subject on both sides, I have altered my previous opinion from some years ago on this subject. I no longer believe there is substantial sex-based discrimination in the workplace, in an apples-to-apples sense. I think it's a sensationalist claim at this point with some small substance to it but overall used to leverage social/political capital. I've even heard prominent feminist speakers on this topic say that the popular myth of the 75 cents on the dollar and so forth is simply false, full stop.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 12, 2016, 06:00:03 PM
Pete, I am glad you finally agree that Hillary Clinton has led a strong political campaign against Donald Trump, which was part of my original point.  And the way you expressed your opinion validated the rest of my point

Quote
She's a Clinton.  Of course she runs a strong campaign

So your assertion seems to be that her skills are related to carrying the same name as her husband. You have in a Trump-like way answered my question about whether sexism is a factor in not giving Hillary Clinton herself an appropriate share of credit for her political success.

========
Bonus request: please show evidence for your assertion that a primary reason for "people jumping ship because of Koch brothers funding" - sounds like unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 12, 2016, 06:07:51 PM
Quote
the popular myth of the 75 cents on the dollar and so forth is simply false

That can be true but not relevant - it's not the claim behind this specific policy. Current law permits discriminatory differentials in salaries paid to women for the same work of the same quality unless you can overcome some tough hurdles for proof - among other things, I believe that you need to bring forward evidence within a very short time frame like 6 months (if you discover the real discrimination after that time there is no recourse - and it can be hard for employees to get access to that comparative data).   
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Pete at Home on August 12, 2016, 06:13:03 PM

Quote
She's a Clinton.  Of course she runs a strong campaign

So your assertion seems to be that her skills are related to carrying the same name as her husband.

Don't be obtuse.  Hillary Clinton is half the Clinton brand name, and always has been. 

If you are half the man I think you are, you will admit that was a ridiculously sexist assumption on your part, and quite unfair to Hillary. Me, I'd just a soon give her credit for some of his wins.  I don't know where he ends or where she begins, but I'm fairly sure that he never would have gotten so far without him. 

She's a Clinton, meaning she's been up to her armpits in the gore and mud of campaigns since most people on this board were in diapers.  If you want to read something "sexist" into that statement, then you are twisting words and breaking your pledge to me above. 

You said you wouldn't do that crap. 

Again, shame on you.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Pete at Home on August 12, 2016, 06:19:23 PM
Pete, I am glad you finally agree that Hillary Clinton has led a strong political campaign

How many falsehoods can you cram into one post, Greg?  Does election time just bring this side out of you?

I haven't "finally" agreed on anything here.  I never denied or disagreed that Hillary was a strong campaigner, but think it's disingenuous to pretend that Trump was anything but a wet dream for any democrat to campaign against.

Quote
against Donald Trump, which was part of my original point.  And the way you expressed your opinion validated the rest of my point

Quote
Bonus request: please show evidence for your assertion that a primary reason for "people jumping ship because of Koch brothers funding" - sounds like unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

Unsubstantiated my ass.  Run a search on Koch and my name and follow the plethora of links.  Is Huffington Post too conservative for you?  ::)
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 12, 2016, 06:23:22 PM
That can be true but not relevant - it's not the claim behind this specific policy. Current law permits discriminatory differentials in salaries paid to women for the same work of the same quality unless you can overcome some tough hurdles for proof - among other things, I believe that you need to bring forward evidence within a very short time frame like 6 months (if you discover the real discrimination after that time there is no recourse - and it can be hard for employees to get access to that comparative data).

I think the subject is discussed in a way that's far too pat. I've heard a lot of discussion about the specifics in cases like this, and in the end I find that broad comments about the alleged problem tend to miss the mark entirely. Only when you get down to the specifics of the particular company, the particular job, and the particular people involved do you find out what the issue was. I'm quite sure some of the time there are sexist managers, and from what I hear more often than not women tend to hold back other women more so than male managers do. However that still admits to sexism, just not of the type often trumpeted over the airwaves. But just as that does exist to some extent, the question is what percentage of instances of unequal pay are strictly because of this, as opposed to other causes. One of those causes that comes out a lot when you hear a case in question (often from the mouth of the woman herself who was receiving less pay than a male counterpart) is that women tend not to negotiate as aggressively as men do for a raise, or at the onset when hired. This accounts for many cases of women making less; it's because they accepted less. We can, in turn, even break down this scenario to a few sub-scenarios, one of which is how women are brought up (a feminist issue, but not a legal one), how culture educates and/or informs the general public about gender-appropriate behavior (another feminist issue), and also perhaps bosses taking advantage of differences in temperament between men and women in order to get away with paying them less. This last one could be called sexist, but on the other hand it could also be called capitalist, which is perhaps worse.

These are only a scant few examples of what the case might be, but unless specific instances are brought up I find it generally unconvincing when I hear talk of this massive pay-wage gap that is affecting women in the workplace. I don't really think the problem exists on the aggregate, even though obviously there will always be some cases of abuse of all kinds. But even if we were to admit that there is still some trace of outright systemic unfairness to whatever extent, it's quite another thing to get the Federal government involved. That requires not only certainty of the problem (which I do not believe there is), but also a certain fix for it.

Honestly I didn't intend to make a big issue out of this one point because I see it as being probably the least important item on the list you presented. But for what it's worth, I don't think Hillary's stance on the issue amounts to much more than pandering for votes. If she really wanted pay equality *for anyone* she wouldn't be working for the people she's working for.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 12, 2016, 07:11:31 PM
I didn't want to get involved a lot on this pay gap issue mostly because I don't know anything about it but one criticism of Hillary is that she actually paid her own female workers less than the men in comparable jobs.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-still-decrying-gender-wage-gap-despite-paying-women-less/article/2561032

"Using the same metric as the study demonstrating the wage gap Clinton cited, women in Clinton's senate office earned 72 cents to the dollar that men earned. The reason for this, of course, is not discrimination (Clinton's spokesman told the Washington Examiner that many of the top positions in her senate office were held by women) but primarily the choices women tend to make in their careers."
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Pete at Home on August 12, 2016, 10:13:19 PM
On the previous page, in response to my concern about joining a thread that promised to be an Emperor's new clothes suck-a-thon, Greg pledged: "I won't argue you are wrong because you are sexist." A couple of exchanges later, following the smirking mendacity of his tin goddess Hillary, Greg twists my words to cook up an accusation of sexism:


Pete, I am glad you finally agree that Hillary Clinton has led a strong political campaign against Donald Trump, which was part of my original point.  And the way you expressed your opinion validated the rest of my point

Quote
She's a Clinton.  Of course she runs a strong campaign

So your assertion seems to be that her skills are related to carrying the same name as her husband. You have in a Trump-like way answered my question about whether sexism is a factor in not giving Hillary Clinton herself an appropriate share of credit for her political success.


What you just did is exactly what both Clintons do, and why 46% of the country at one time even entertain the notion of electing Trump to stop her.  Lying about what people say in order to demonize them.  I just said that HRC is, at this point in history, the strongest political campaigner alive, based on her decades of history working through her husband, then in the Senate, then in the Cabinet.  She is part of what made the Bill Clinton brand strong, and that was just the beginning of her career. 

I don't give her credit for it, because unlike you, I don't think that being skilled at lying about other people's positions is a skill that we should value as a society.  You seem to think that it should make her president.  I think it probably will make her president, but that it shouldn't.  I think the entire premise of your thread is as shallow as it is dishonest and poisonous.  But I've showed that already above.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 12, 2016, 10:50:55 PM
1. "For families making less than $125,000 a year, we will eliminate tuition" for in-state students at public colleges.
2. "Pass comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship that keeps families together."
3. "Stand up to Republican-led attacks on this landmark (health care) law—and build on its success to bring the promise of affordable health care to more people and make a ‘public option’ possible."
4. "We will do everything we can to overturn Citizens United."
5. "Fighting for equal pay."
6. "I will not raise middle-class taxes."
7. "Say no to attacks on working families and no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership."
8. "We’re going to increase the federal minimum wage."
9. "As president, Hillary will expand background checks to more gun sales."
10. "Clinton would increase federal infrastructure funding by $275 billion over a five-year period."

Numbers 1 and 6 are going to come in conflict with each other. There is no way to pay for it without it penalizing the middle class one way or the other. It also raises some other potentially disturbing issues beyond essentially making it official that they've essentially federalized the State University system. Number 3 also tends to back-door the middle class in particular, as it either gets supported through official taxes, or through ever increasing health insurance premiums they must pay, or get taxed.

I have "issues" with regards to the likely implementation that she would pursue on #2.

#4 is terrifying in a number of OTHER ways, nice idea on paper, but the "unintended" consequences are terrifying, IMO.

#5 is boilerplate nonsense, they talk the talk, but I highly doubt she'll bother to walk the walk, much like Obama and her husband did before him.

#7 is nonsense and pandering.

#8 is an entirely different ball of wax, and actively harmful for the poorly educated, oh wait, they get "free" University tuition now paid for with magic money(Is it coming from Obama's secret stash of cash?), never mind.

#9 Requires MUCH more detail.

#10 Not going to object to that one, but again, that money has to come from somewhere, and as the preferred funding source for Highway monies is usually by way of a gas/fuel tax, I find it hard to see how she's going to fund it without the Middle Class getting hit by a tax hike she says she won't do in #6.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 12, 2016, 10:59:08 PM
That can be true but not relevant - it's not the claim behind this specific policy. Current law permits discriminatory differentials in salaries paid to women for the same work of the same quality unless you can overcome some tough hurdles for proof - among other things, I believe that you need to bring forward evidence within a very short time frame like 6 months (if you discover the real discrimination after that time there is no recourse - and it can be hard for employees to get access to that comparative data).

The thing you're forgetting is "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Data can be manipulated to present almost any point you want to make if you work at long enough. If you're comparing a salaried (male) employee who has been with the company for 15 years against a salaried female employee who has been on the job for 1 year, you probably will find the guy who has been there for 15 years gets paid more, even though their job titles and descriptions are exactly the same.

And that is just one way to manipulate the data. Also in the mix are part time mothers vs full time males(again, the full time employee probably gets paid more per hour just by virtue of being full time), work experience differentials, and so on.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: AI Wessex on August 13, 2016, 06:45:04 PM
I don't think Sanders has any remote interest in a cabinet position in her Administration.  I also don't think there's even a remote chance that Schumer will offer him a committee chairmanship.  It takes more than caucusing with Democrats to be part of the inner circle.
Another really good reason Sanders won't get a committee chairmanship is that if the Dems have a clear majority in the new Senate, they won't need to coddle him.  I doubt very much he be petty enough to attack them outside of the chamber if they pass over him for someone considered more loyal and reliable.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: AI Wessex on August 13, 2016, 07:51:28 PM
I didn't want to get involved a lot on this pay gap issue mostly because I don't know anything about it but one criticism of Hillary is that she actually paid her own female workers less than the men in comparable jobs.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-still-decrying-gender-wage-gap-despite-paying-women-less/article/2561032

"Using the same metric as the study demonstrating the wage gap Clinton cited, women in Clinton's senate office earned 72 cents to the dollar that men earned. The reason for this, of course, is not discrimination (Clinton's spokesman told the Washington Examiner that many of the top positions in her senate office were held by women) but primarily the choices women tend to make in their careers."
cherry, I know that you don't really care,  but you might want to expand your sources to get a fuller picture of this.

  http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/jul/19/sharon-day/floridas-sharon-day-misleads-hillary-clinton-and-g/
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 13, 2016, 11:00:18 PM
Thanks. It was interesting, but still a bit confusing.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: DJQuag on August 14, 2016, 07:02:44 AM
I don't think Sanders has any remote interest in a cabinet position in her Administration.  I also don't think there's even a remote chance that Schumer will offer him a committee chairmanship.  It takes more than caucusing with Democrats to be part of the inner circle.
Another really good reason Sanders won't get a committee chairmanship is that if the Dems have a clear majority in the new Senate, they won't need to coddle him.  I doubt very much he be petty enough to attack them outside of the chamber if they pass over him for someone considered more loyal and reliable.

Yeah, but the new way of looking at politics and politicians sees this as a bug, not a feature.

They can go ahead and try to shunt him to the side if they want, but it's going to alienate the types of Democrats and progressives that were drawn to him in the first place.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 14, 2016, 11:07:10 AM
TheDeamon,

The purpose of showing these policies was to demonstrate Clinton's political skill in attracting independent and Republican support despite having a progressive agenda. Elsewhere, we could talk specifics about the merits of these policies, but their inclusion here is to show that she has not had to change policy to attract a wide range of supporters.

The overall point I wanted to make in this thread is that Hillary Clinton is not getting the same level of personal credit for running an effective political campaign as is often given to male candidates.   
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: AI Wessex on August 14, 2016, 11:18:39 AM
Greg, your concern about her not getting sufficient credit is reminiscent of complaints (mine included) that Obama is denigrated because he is black.  There's some truth to both concerns, but I doubt there are very many people who would admit to either one.  Those who do are usually easily dismissed for other reasons, like they don't really know many actual facts about what either of them have done or what they really stand for.  It's a lot easier to dismiss someone for superficial reasons that don't amount to much than to make the effort to understand them.  That effort is beyond some of those people's abilities, anyway.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 14, 2016, 12:18:52 PM
Thanks, AI. I did find the responses interesting and helpful, and they certainly spanned a wide range. I think that at least for some, this perspective had not been raised, and it was worth a little thought. 
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 14, 2016, 11:50:20 PM
If the denigration of Obama is because he is (half) black and people don't give Hillary the respect and credit she deserves because she is a woman then how do we explain that Jimmy Carter, a white man, is widely regarded as the greatest failure of a President in recent history?

At least until Obama came and knocked him off his pedestal.

I'm going to guess it's because results matter. And so do facts. Obama's results are terrible and the facts about Hillary are even worse.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: AI Wessex on August 15, 2016, 03:42:17 AM
Quote
I'm going to guess it's because results matter.
In your case it's because bias matters far more than facts.  Carter is actually widely considered a mediocre President and Obama is considered better than average, but since he hasn't finished his term his ranking is likely to change (for the better).   Bush II is consistently ranked much lower than either of them, and is generally considered one of the worst Presidents ever.  IIRC, it was Bush II who sent you to war.  How does it make you feel to have risked your life to serve in what historians generally believe was the biggest military and foreign policy disaster in the nation's history?  It should make you feel at least a little reassured that neither Obama nor Hillary are likely to take that title away from him.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 15, 2016, 04:10:48 AM
What Obama did was even worse with the premature pullout to destroy a fledgling democracy and give the vacuum needed for ISIS to rise. It would be like if instead of occupying Germany and Japan after WWII we just pulled out and let them rise again, actually just like we did after WWI with Germany. Or like it would have been if we had pulled out of South Korea after we repulsed the commies. Or like it actually was when we pulled out of South Vietnam after the North signed a peace agreement we knew they never intended to keep. Why should we still be in South Korea, Japan, and Germany where they are relatively stable but leave Iraq to the wolves when it was still vulnerable. If you say Status of Forces Agreement that is where Trump is right again that Obama and Bush too are failures at negotiation. If it meant strong arming them and not giving them a choice in the matter then that still would have been better than what we've got now with ISIS. It turns out that McCain was right and if we had to occupy Iraq for another 100 years that would have been the right play. Instead Obama let a Christian genocide occur in the Middle-East and there is just no way it can over go back to anywhere near the levels of Christianity there was before in large part because so many of those Christians are dead. That fatal blunder alone makes Obama the worst President in recent times and one of the worst ever. Unless the genocide of Christians in the Middle-East is not very important in which case I guess it doesn't matter. And Hillary was his partner in crime there. Even seeing the results in Iraq they still took out the secular dictators of Libya and Egypt when anyone could see that the power vacuum would only help the Islamists. And then even after that and even right now they still want to take out Assad who, even with all of his faults, still was always relatively nice to the Christians in Syria. At least he never gave them the choice to convert or die and then carried out the executions of those who refused and sold into sex slavery those who converted. That is all Obama and Hillary.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: AI Wessex on August 15, 2016, 04:15:47 AM
Quote
What Obama did was even worse with the premature pullout to destroy a fledgling democracy and give the vacuum needed for ISIS to rise.
He did what Trump said we should do back in 2007, only not so abruptly as Trump wanted.  He fulfilled the terms of the withdrawal agreement that Bush had put in place in 2008.  Do you agree with Katrina Pierson that the only thing Obama did that was worse than pulling out of Iraq was then invading Afghanistan?
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 15, 2016, 08:48:08 AM
Trump saying that in 2007/2008 was why he was a non-factor in the 2008 Republican Presidential Primaries. He's had 8 years to reinvent himself, and as he has no governmental voting/decision record....
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: AI Wessex on August 15, 2016, 10:24:51 AM
Which suggests that *nothing* he says now matters. He's rubber, she's glue.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 15, 2016, 10:31:39 AM
And neither one ever stopped being a terrible candidate for President. So your point is?
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: AI Wessex on August 15, 2016, 10:37:27 AM
That people hold Hillary responsible for everything she's ever said or done, as well as things she never said or did.  Trump can flip-flop whenever he feels like it, sometimes up to twice in a single day, and it doesn't seem to matter.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 15, 2016, 11:19:01 AM
He fulfilled the terms of the withdrawal agreement that Bush had put in place in 2008.  Do you agree with Katrina Pierson that the only thing Obama did that was worse than pulling out of Iraq was then invading Afghanistan?

Yes, wasn't the plan to pull out of Iraq Bush's plan? Why is Obama fulfilling that plan Obama's fault, when it was the previous administration's policy with regard to the previous administration's war?
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 15, 2016, 12:52:26 PM
That people hold Hillary responsible for everything she's ever said or done, as well as things she never said or did.  Trump can flip-flop whenever he feels like it, sometimes up to twice in a single day, and it doesn't seem to matter.

Like John Kerry in 2004?

Trump's flippant behavior is expected, and he hasn't done much to be taken seriously on the political stage. So his continued behavior as the court jester doesn't draw negative attention to him, and eye rolls at the people who do take him seriously. (On either side of the aisle)

Hillary has always presented herself as a serious candidate or presence(When it was Bill) on the political stage. As such, her statements are taken seriously by nearly everyone, even the ones she didn't make.

Hey, if Palin can get clobbered for Tina Fey on SNL. It's only fitting Hillary gets comparable karmic payback for not stepping up and putting a stop to that bull---- in 2008.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Seriati on August 16, 2016, 01:26:45 PM
Within a very short time after Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton, she has led a campaign effort that has absolutely devasted Donald Trump and the prospects that he will win the Presidency.
   

Honestly, what I've seen, and others have pointed out is that she's very shrewdly taken herself out of the public eye.  She recognized that both candidates are repugnant and the one that was going to win would be the one that people hated less (or less recently).  As such, I don't see a campaign effort being led.  Is it really your view that someone is "leading" by staying completely out of the direct public view, fighting completely by proxies and generally avoiding any unscripted/uncontrolled media situations?  It's definitely shrewd and effective, don't see it as leading.

I'd also like to point out, that the primary factors devastating Donald Trump are his own mouth and the deliberate media coverage designed to magnify whatever comes out of it.

Quote
I suspect that some people will not give her any credit, instead asserting that Trump's fall was inevitable and she's just a weak candidate who got lucky.

Trump's fall was not inevitable, but it may have been unrealistic to expect anything different with his personality flaws.  She's not a weak candidate who got lucky, she's a horrible candidate who got lucky with her opponents.  I mean honestly, the last 3 candidates were Trump (who's a complete disaster), Cruz (who seems to be a bigger sleaze than Hillary) and Kasich (who is so weak its funny).

Quote
And I think that way of thinking may be because she is a female politician.

That says more about your agenda than everyone else's.

Though I will give you some support - in my case - because I don't honestly believe that any male candidate could have gotten where she is with the negatives she has.

Quote
Look at the evidence - Trump had previously ripped through a field of 15 other Republican candidates.  Over a year, his failure was supposed to be inevitable, and yet somehow that never happened.

The single biggest difference is that while doing so, the media fully backed his attacks on the other candidates while only partially focusing on his negatives.  Running against Hillary, the media has completely buried his attacks and gone to continuous repeat on his negatives. 

The funniest thing I EVER saw on media bias was when Hillary ran against Obama and the media treated her the way they typically treat a Republican (though even then with kid gloves) and the outrage that caused was hilarious.

Quote
And it is notable that many of the ways in which Hillary has done such damage to his campaign has been through approaches that don't fit in with our stereotypical view of what it is to be a powerfgul male political figure.

They're exactly the same ways - ie proxy attacks and media manipulation - that male politicians try, it just used to be that the media held itself to a standard of pretend neutrality and balance, and now openly believes in slanting the coverage.

Quote
Part of her strength is the strong support from Barack (and Michelle) Obama, her bitter rival from the 2008 campaign.  How did she get there with him, and his coalition?

Because she's a career party workhorse, and Barack has no interest in alienating the entirety of the Democratic party?

Quote
Well, after a bitter loss, she got up and left her ego at the door, serving him loyally as Secretary of State. That's unusual behavior for a leading national politician, and one that won the loyalty of many Obama supporters.

What's unusual about that behavior?  All party insiders do that, heck even people from the other party generally serve "loyally" in Cabinent positions.  It's not like we're fully privy to their actual interactions.

I note you focus on her loyalty rather than focusing on her actually doing the job, can't say I disagree with that.

Quote
She had a thorough and diligently planned convention, attacking the smears against her character with testimonials from a lifetime on service to regular human beings in ways that are different from traditional politicians (you may not be swayed by her personal involvement with the health concerns of her constituents after 9/11, but her lifetime of actions were persuasive to many moderates).

This is all true, the convention was very well done.  Of course, I always see the giant thumb of the media influence there.  It's no accident that the Democratic convention can fill itself with speakers (some like former President Clinton) who've had massive scandals, others like the Black Lives movement speakers who are embroiled in actual major controversies and the media focuses on their grandness and inclusiveness, where when they look at a Republican speaker ALL they can see is the controversy.

But it definitely was a great move for her to completely avoid any talk of substance or policy, her campaign doesn't rest on any real ideals afterall, and all talking about her policies will do is alienate voters.  And honestly, her loyalists don't actually care what specific positions she takes, and those she hopes to sway are more swayed by "not that guy" sentiments than the "I'm with her" ones.

Quote
She was very conciliatory to the Bernie Sanders coalition, more so than a number of other politicians would be.

Really?  I can't imagine any competent and very few incompetent politicians that wouldn't have been at least that conciliatory with him. 

In fact you completely missed the most savvy thing she did with Bernie.  She DID NOT make him part of her coalition, but just shuffled him off as soon as she could.  The one thing she absolutely doesn't want is someone like Bernie speaking on her behalf and risking this election turning into one about issues (well at least until she's already convinced voters to vote for her, then its fine to do so as their cognitive dissonance will keep them in line through the election).

Quote
She picked Tim Kaine as a VP candidate, an interesting choice because she was both prioritizing governing experience over campaign cachet and yet also she did have a planned niche for his campaigning skills.

Still don't know a lot about him, and don't expect that I will learn about him, because again, she doesn't want this election to be about issues and positions.  And that is absolutely the right tactic to take.

Quote
And someone had to plan the political attacks and traps for Trump.

Did they really?  The man foot faults every day, all that has to be in the plan is lining up the obedient media clowns to run with any thing they can repeat directly, and to be prepared with "analysis" that twists anything else (while burying anything exactly equivalent that comes up about candidate Clinton as a "non-issue" or "old news").

Quote
There has been a huge effort expended in get-out-the-vote.

It's been a long standing Democratic policy to bring out as many voters as possible who would not otherwise choose to vote on their own.  You can of course tell yourself that this is part of a noble drive to enfranchise people, but it's also perfectly rationale to wonder why a party needs so strongly to bring people with little interest or knowledge of politics and the actual impact of the policies a party pursues to the polls in great numbers.  Especially, when they've deliberately crafted their mass market message to focus purely on media bites and promises of give aways that sound good but that have hidden strings and consequences.  Definitely clever, but done purely in a cynical manner.

Quote
Of course she is not flawless as a candidate. She lacks the same level of personal charisma as other candidates, and she has sufferred some damage as part of the 25 years of attack.

She's suffered damage based on a 25 year history of unethical and in some cases illegal behavior.  Every politician is attacked, I challenge you to name Republican politicians who have NOT been attacked.

Quote
And I believe that one reason for that is that she is a woman.

I think the truth about Hillary is that only inspiring thing about her is that she is a woman.  She's not a great speaker, she's not particularly likable, she has a reputation for dishonesty (and in my view is the most dishonest and corrupt candidate I've ever seen), she doesn't have a history of success in any of the political offices or positions she's held and she's not really running on any particular positions that are inspiring either (don't get me wrong, she's got platform pieces that people do like, but she's not emphasizing them).  I've seen plenty of her commercials, 90% of them are about Trump and the rest are trying to build her cult of personality.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Seriati on August 16, 2016, 01:29:25 PM
One thing that has changed and is costing Trump support is the size and song of the choir of Republicans who are against him.  Now they are singing that they are willing to vote Clinton to stop Trump.  During the primary, many were extremely opposed to Trump but didn't have to go so far as to suggest Hillary was better.  Now she's the only realistic NeverTrump option.  Given how united the Republican machine has been in opposition to Hillary in the past, these defections are extremely telling.  It's like they are saying "All that stuff was just playing to win, now it *censored*ing matters."

Or like pigs to the trough, both parties establishment candidates have more interest in preserving the establishment than they do in the actual differences their constiuents care about.  I know you guys love the idea of repealing Citizens United, but we'd get far more actual benefit by instituting hard term limits (for government service in total, not just by office).
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Seriati on August 16, 2016, 01:33:01 PM
In a funny way I don't really think his opinion on the matter would be the biggest issue; Hillary's would be. Frankly I think she's bats**t insane not to have already publicly offered him a conciliatory post in her administration or cabinet in order to bring his voters into the fold and make peace with people who feel Bernie's influence will be lost in her administration. He absolutely should have been invited, and if he was willing to back down and endorse Hillary for the sake of the party I'm sure he'd take this job too for the same reason. There is no good strategic reason not to have tried to include him directly in her campaign. It's just a mistake, plain and simple. Even if Hillary isn't ready to announce who will have what position in her government, she could at least have said he'd have a prominent position of some sort to make use of his insight and his influence.

No, it's actually not a mistake, there is no strategic reason to include him.  With him out of the way and silent, she's the only voice that even approximates what his voters want, and she's shrewdly focused the attention on why Trump is completely unacceptable for them.  Allowing Bernie any kind of continuing voice would completely undermine her actual campaign by putting issues that WILL cost her votes back into the front of the public's mind.

Honestly, she'd have to have been insane, or an incredibly weak candidate (she's many things, but she is not weak), to even consider putting Bernie into that position.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: scifibum on August 16, 2016, 01:39:48 PM
Seriati:

Quote
I'd also like to point out, that the primary factors devastating Donald Trump are his own mouth and the deliberate media coverage designed to magnify whatever comes out of it.

This hasn't changed, these were the same factors that won him the nomination.  When you say the media focused on his attacks before and his blunders now, I don't know what you're talking about.  He's been blustering and boasting and being ridiculous the entire time.  "Blood coming out of her whatever", remember?  That helped him in the primary.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Seriati on August 16, 2016, 02:33:55 PM
What's changed is the focus, Trump labeled his opponents and the media reported on the labels extensively.  Trump has tried the exact same tactic with Hillary, and the media has refused to play along.  In the Republican primary, Trump had just as many gaffes and they were widely reported and quickly dropped in favor of new things he was saying.  The man has not stopped talking, yet now we get lovingly refocused back to older points and the newer things don't get wall to wall coverage.  Nothing has changed about him, really nothing at all, except the media won't back his attempts to focus on Hillary the way they would on "lying Ted Cruz," "Little Marco," and the rest.  The media themselves spent hours talking about those labels, how long are they spending talking about "crooked Hillary"?
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Seriati on August 16, 2016, 02:40:04 PM
Not to mention, if you watched the Republican debates, the "questions" that got asked did the same thing.  'Mr. Rubio, Mr. Trump has said that Mr. Bush is a weak candidate, do you think that's a fair criticism?'  'Mr. Bush, would you like to respond to Mr. Trump calling you a weak candidate'  Not real quotes, but not far off in some cases.  With Hillary, they don't ask her about what Trump says - how could they after all when she won't give press conferences - but instead they go way further and they put up questionable fact checkers and media talking heads to defend her without her having to respond.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: AI Wessex on August 16, 2016, 02:48:46 PM
Not to mention, if you watched the Republican debates, the "questions" that got asked did the same thing.  'Mr. Rubio, Mr. Trump has said that Mr. Bush is a weak candidate, do you think that's a fair criticism?'  'Mr. Bush, would you like to respond to Mr. Trump calling you a weak candidate'  Not real quotes, but not far off in some cases.  With Hillary, they don't ask her about what Trump says - how could they after all when she won't give press conferences - but instead they go way further and they put up questionable fact checkers and media talking heads to defend her without her having to respond.
In other words, he's no longer a fresh, new face with no history.  The longer he sticks around the more everyone tries to find out about him.  His old insults haven't gone away, and he makes sure to make new ones every time he opens his mouth. Since he's long on epithets and short on policy statements, it's no surprise that his tweets and bile tongue are what get reported on.  If you've read the reviews and analysis of his economic and foreign policy teleprompter drone readings, you will understand why those don't get much attention.

Also, he has the world's most fantabulous national spokesdummy in Katrina Pierson.  It's like every day she and Trump get together to spin the magic 8-ball and see what new nonsense they can come up with.  I loved her comment that releasing tax returns is just a novelty, so it has little real meaning.  Reminded that it has been a tradition for every candidate for over 40 years, she corrected the interviewer and said, Right, it's a novelty tradition.  What does that even mean?  That was in the same week that she pointed out that Obama and Hillary were responsible for Khan's son's death, that Obama invaded Afghanistan in 2007, and that even though Trump talked about 2A people taking matters into their own hands after the election, he was talking about them voting.

But Trump is extra-special Trumpy these days.  Michael Moore now says he has proof that Trump only got into the race to boost his salary for next season's Apprentice.  He tried to screw it up at every chance with stupid remarks, but it kept getting worse instead of better.  Now he's going to have to do something even more bizarre than he's already done to get his point across.  We'll keep watching in horror and anticipation to see what that will be.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Seriati on August 16, 2016, 02:58:09 PM
In other words, he's no longer a fresh, new face with no history.

No.  If you want to try and put words in my mouth they should be accurate.  Trump was NEVER a fresh face with no history.

The accurate version of paraphrasing me would be, "In other words, he's no longer running against [evil] Republicans."


Quote
If you've read the reviews and analysis of his economic and foreign policy teleprompter drone readings, you will understand why those don't get much attention.

On the other hand if you'd read the same on Hillary's policy, you'd realize voting for her will be an economic disaster and our foreign policy will be redefined as "for sale to highest bidder."

Quote
I loved her comment that releasing tax returns is just a novelty, so it has little real meaning.  Reminded that it has been a tradition for every candidate for over 40 years, she corrected the interviewer and said, Right, it's a novelty tradition.

Honestly, it's a silly tradition designed to hamper any one who's not part of the political class from running for office.

Quote
He tried to screw it up at every chance with stupid remarks, but it kept getting worse instead of better.

It's possible this is true.  But it's a certainty that the media did their level best to make sure he got the Republican nomination and will do their level best to ensure he's not President.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 16, 2016, 03:22:57 PM
No, it's actually not a mistake, there is no strategic reason to include him.  With him out of the way and silent, she's the only voice that even approximates what his voters want, and she's shrewdly focused the attention on why Trump is completely unacceptable for them.  Allowing Bernie any kind of continuing voice would completely undermine her actual campaign by putting issues that WILL cost her votes back into the front of the public's mind.

I see what you're saying about her systematically avoiding the issues, and Bernie being a direct magnet right back to them. However she could just as easily have made him her 'issue man' while standing back personally and directing the campaign as she's been doing. Let him be a scarecrow to get the voters to side with her, while doing whatever she was going to do anyhow. The problem you raise would create the danger of the GOP pointing back to the issues while she's trying to avoid them, but sooner or later it will come back to them anyhow. She can stall that for now, but it's inevitable that she'll have to address them, and her message would be stronger when that time comes with Bernie on board. She has had no shame to date naming her perceived strengths (I AM A WOMAN) and I have no doubt she could have played the "With good men like Sen. Sanders on our side" card to strong effect.

What's changed is the focus, Trump labeled his opponents and the media reported on the labels extensively.  Trump has tried the exact same tactic with Hillary, and the media has refused to play along.  In the Republican primary, Trump had just as many gaffes and they were widely reported and quickly dropped in favor of new things he was saying.  The man has not stopped talking, yet now we get lovingly refocused back to older points and the newer things don't get wall to wall coverage.  Nothing has changed about him, really nothing at all, except the media won't back his attempts to focus on Hillary the way they would on "lying Ted Cruz," "Little Marco," and the rest.  The media themselves spent hours talking about those labels, how long are they spending talking about "crooked Hillary"?

What's changed is we met Trump in this election cycle positioned face to face with his opponents, who had to stand there and take what he was dishing out. In fact, based on the debate rules the more they attempted to refute him the more air time he got in the 30-60 second rebuttals due to his name being mentioned. He ended up taking up the majority of the air time purely because he strategically inserted himself into other candidates' speaking time due to them having to respond to his statements. Some of the candidates even called him out on this but that even gave him more time!

Contrast with now, where Trump's campaign against Hillary, which in all seriousness has just begun, is being conducted from the shadows, though the media, and over social media. Just wait until they are face to face in the same room and you'll see what happens. Maybe he'll screw it up or maybe she will, but either way that is the format that allowed him to destroy the others and that's what will give him the momentum he would need to win over Hillary. I predict she attempts to limit Presidential debates to the absolute minimum possible in order to neutralize what would surely be his best arena. Hillary knows that her own presence and her own voice and the greatest weapons that can be used against her, and she's going to limit exposure to these as much as she realistically can.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: NobleHunter on August 16, 2016, 03:37:18 PM
Quote
I predict she attempts to limit Presidential debates to the absolute minimum possible in order to neutralize what would surely be his best arena. Hillary knows that her own presence and her own voice and the greatest weapons that can be used against her, and she's going to limit exposure to these as much as she realistically can.
I think she'll instead push for debates with an off-the-cuff style where she can put people to sleep and he can run at the mouth. He'll get scandal fodder and she'll avoid unforced errors. Trump's camp has sent some signals that he's going to be difficult wrt the debates since he's clearly got a problem being respectable without a teleprompter.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Seriati on August 16, 2016, 04:02:49 PM
I see what you're saying about her systematically avoiding the issues, and Bernie being a direct magnet right back to them. However she could just as easily have made him her 'issue man' while standing back personally and directing the campaign as she's been doing.

Why would she want him to be her "issue" man?  I don't think she - or more significantly the establishment she represents agrees with him.  That however is a substantive point, using him as a front costs her votes in the current environment and undermines her strategy.

There certainly could have been situations where it was strategic to include him, like for instance if he had credibly committed to running a third party campaign.  In such a circumstance I have no doubt Clinton would have included him, but that's because I honestly believe she'd change anything about her campaign to win.

Quote
Let him be a scarecrow to get the voters to side with her, while doing whatever she was going to do anyhow.


Under what circumstances does he add more voters than he costs her?  Only if there is a real risk of losing voters to her own left to a third party.  Literally that's the only situation where bringing him in helps.

Quote
She can stall that for now, but it's inevitable that she'll have to address them, and her message would be stronger when that time comes with Bernie on board.

I honestly don't believe she'll have to address the issues.  The media is in the tank, she doesn't even do press conferences and they let it slide.  She directly gaslights them and they let it go.  What makes you think this election will ever turn to the issues?

And again, even if it did, how does including someone from her left help her win the general?  Bernie's voters have no where plausible to go, the only risk is that they stay home in greater numbers than Clinton picks up in centrist voters.

Quote
She has had no shame to date naming her perceived strengths (I AM A WOMAN) and I have no doubt she could have played the "With good men like Sen. Sanders on our side" card to strong effect.

Of course, not to call you out, but do realize how sexist that kind of line is?

Quote
Contrast with now, where Trump's campaign against Hillary, which in all seriousness has just begun, is being conducted from the shadows, though the media, and over social media. Just wait until they are face to face in the same room and you'll see what happens.

Maybe, I agree somewhat with your point about why he was so effective face to face, even where what he actually said in the debates often was incoherent.  But again, he was successful because of the repetition the media gave him and the constant framing they imposed, every interview with any Republican candidate was focused back on things Trump said about them.

You'll see the exact same thing happen in the general, except - as you've already seen with Trump proxies - the media will turn every interview with/about Trump into either defending himself against misstatements or absurd claims from the Clinton camp and its proxies, while Clinton will continue not having to react to anything real or asserted.

Quote
Maybe he'll screw it up or maybe she will, but either way that is the format that allowed him to destroy the others and that's what will give him the momentum he would need to win over Hillary.

I predict (which I don't usually do) that the two party debates will be worthless to Trump in the end.  I doubt if he "wins" a single one. 

Quote
I predict she attempts to limit Presidential debates to the absolute minimum possible in order to neutralize what would surely be his best arena. Hillary knows that her own presence and her own voice and the greatest weapons that can be used against her, and she's going to limit exposure to these as much as she realistically can.

Much like Hillary's campaign, his best bet is to put her front and center in the publics' mind.  The difference is the media isn't going to help him do it.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: NobleHunter on August 16, 2016, 04:29:10 PM
Quote
Much like Hillary's campaign, his best bet is to put her front and center in the publics' mind.  The difference is the media isn't going to help him do it.
If Trump wants to make the election about Clinton, he needs to stop being more newsworthy than her. That means he has to stop being novel and outrageous. His problem is that I don't see how he can do that without mortally offending his base.

Going back a little:
Quote
The man has not stopped talking, yet now we get lovingly refocused back to older points and the newer things don't get wall to wall coverage. Nothing has changed about him, really nothing at all, except the media won't back his attempts to focus on Hillary the way they would on "lying Ted Cruz," "Little Marco," and the rest.  The media themselves spent hours talking about those labels, how long are they spending talking about "crooked Hillary"?
As he keeps saying new things, the new things get reported. "Crooked Hillary" is old news; in the primaries Trump could say new outrageous things about each presumed challenger and so the name-calling would get fresh-air time. If he wants the same effect in the general, he needs to keep coming up with new names for Clinton.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 16, 2016, 04:37:42 PM
Under what circumstances does he add more voters than he costs her?  Only if there is a real risk of losing voters to her own left to a third party.  Literally that's the only situation where bringing him in helps.

This is really what our disagreement is about. I think it's fairly clear that a lot of hardcore Bernie supporters will choose not to vote at all rather than vote for Hillary. It's not a question of them voting for Stein, but rather just not voting. In my mind it's not really a question whether having Bernie on board would rally those people to Hillary. The question, then, is whether it would alienate centrist or undecideds more so than Hillary without him on board would do. What makes you think Bernie's presence would somehow make her turnout worse? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it certainly doesn't sound intuitively clear to me. You yourself said that typical Democrat strategy is to try to get people out to the polls who normally wouldn't vote. Since that is precisely Bernie's strength (and not Hillary's) you'd have to show a pretty high certainty of Bernie costing her votes to show that bringing him on board would be a net loss.

Of course there's also the matter of the severely faltering belief in the DNC in the first place, especially among young people. Even if his presence made her campaign a net wash it could help bring people back into the fold of feeling like the DNC isn't just out to screw them. Including Sanders would be a meta-message about inclusion, just as much as it would be about this particular election. By excluding him they're basically saying "if we have enough to win without you losers then you can just screw off." That's bad long-term strategy. 

Quote
Quote
She has had no shame to date naming her perceived strengths (I AM A WOMAN) and I have no doubt she could have played the "With good men like Sen. Sanders on our side" card to strong effect.

Of course, not to call you out, but do realize how sexist that kind of line is?

Pointing out what Clinton has repeatedly drilled into people's heads is "sexist"? My comment was meant to illustrate that she has no problem with actually naming her own strengths rather than being what she is and assuming they're just evident. In other words, she'll verbatim say them rather than imply them, just as she has done many times about being a woman candidate. Don't see what my observing this has to do with my remark being sexist.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Seriati on August 16, 2016, 05:29:56 PM
If Trump wants to make the election about Clinton, he needs to stop being more newsworthy than her. That means he has to stop being novel and outrageous. His problem is that I don't see how he can do that without mortally offending his base.

Trump's problem is that he's the only spokesperson he has who gets attention.  He simply can't be "less" newsworthy than her and still get the attack to stick, unless he wants to call in as a "friend" again.

Quote
"Crooked Hillary" is old news;

Anytime I hear the phrase "old news" I know Clinton's strategy is effective.  How one person can avoid any responsibility for any issue by declaring it old news is beyond me.  Especially when if she were a Republican it wouldn't apparently be "old news" that say, she picked on someone in a locker room in high school, but it is exactly 10 minutes after any current scandal breaks.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 16, 2016, 05:34:21 PM
"Old News" is a tried and true tactic of the Democratic Party for decades now, and the press let's them get away with it. Only Republicans need to be constantly confronted with their not-so-recent sins on an ongoing basis. Although admittedly, the Republicans do a good(bad?) job of creating new ones, real and imagined(by the Democrats) alike.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Seriati on August 16, 2016, 05:50:33 PM
Under what circumstances does he add more voters than he costs her?  Only if there is a real risk of losing voters to her own left to a third party.  Literally that's the only situation where bringing him in helps.

This is really what our disagreement is about. I think it's fairly clear that a lot of hardcore Bernie supporters will choose not to vote at all rather than vote for Hillary. It's not a question of them voting for Stein, but rather just not voting. In my mind it's not really a question whether having Bernie on board would rally those people to Hillary.  The question, then, is whether it would alienate centrist or undecideds more so than Hillary without him on board would do.

We're in agreement on this part, that is exactly the question.  You've seen the answer from Hillary, which is why you were surprised that she didn't take the "no brainer" route and include him, and I see it as a "no brainer" that she did exactly what she did and get him out of the spotlight immediately.

Quote
What makes you think Bernie's presence would somehow make her turnout worse? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it certainly doesn't sound intuitively clear to me.

It's really just a question of Demographics.  Bernie increases her voter pull with Core Democratic voters, but allowing him to speak loudly about socialist policies suppresses all potential for "cross over voters" including the vast majority of the independent middle.  If you disagree, explain why it is always the policy of the Democratic candidate to tack to the middle after they are nominated?

If you keep Bernie active, you have exactly two choices:  1. stay left, which terrifies every party insider with memories of the Carter backlash, or 2. tack middle and then either you separate from Bernie (with big betrayal costs among those motivated people you're trying to retain) or force Bernie to come with you (it which case he is also betraying them).  Bernie can't come middle and "stay true" to the people who support him.

Quote
You yourself said that typical Democrat strategy is to try to get people out to the polls who normally wouldn't vote. Since that is precisely Bernie's strength (and not Hillary's) you'd have to show a pretty high certainty of Bernie costing her votes to show that bringing him on board would be a net loss.

Two things.  I uncharitably stated that their goal is to bring uninformed new voters to the polls, that doesn't really describe Bernie supporters.  The Democrats will be ecstatic if the Bernie voters turn out to be consistent and regular Democratic voters and that will change how they pitch to them, but for now, they have to see these idealists as a high risk to get educated and make informed decisions.  That puts them at severe risk to change parties, whether towards the Green or left parties or even towards the Republicans.

And second, it's a simple calculus, if they're really serious they will still vote (even without Bernie) and Hillary is there only real option.  They flat out expect the incremental gain of keeping Bernie to not be significant.  If they get 80% support of the true "new" voters (not disaffected Dems who also supported him) and could get 90% with Bernie actively stumping there is no chance that they don't lose more in the middle from letting Bernie's policies become their message (which is the only way they could ensure the 10% bump in the hard core voters).  All numbers made up of course, but I bet you big time that's the kind of analysis they did.

Quote
Of course there's also the matter of the severely faltering belief in the DNC in the first place, especially among young people. Even if his presence made her campaign a net wash it could help bring people back into the fold of feeling like the DNC isn't just out to screw them. Including Sanders would be a meta-message about inclusion, just as much as it would be about this particular election. By excluding him they're basically saying "if we have enough to win without you losers then you can just screw off." That's bad long-term strategy.


I honestly believe they viewed including Bernie as putting them at risk to lose the general election.  They might have made a different decision on today's numbers.  But you can't assume they had good will to burn with the middle when - at the time - Trump was polling even with them.

Quote
Quote
Quote
"With good men like Sen. Sanders on our side" card to strong effect.

Of course, not to call you out, but do realize how sexist that kind of line is?

Pointing out what Clinton has repeatedly drilled into people's heads is "sexist"?

Saying that she could call to the support of 'good men on her side' as a 'strong card,' is decidedly an anti-feminist message.

Apologies for implying your comments was sexist, however a call to the support of "men on her side" is inherently an anti-feminist message that implies a need for a male endorsement.  It's almost a dog whistle.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: NobleHunter on August 16, 2016, 06:10:43 PM
Quote
Anytime I hear the phrase "old news" I know Clinton's strategy is effective.
Yeah, "crooked Hillary" is old news. He started calling her that weeks ago. What's there to report about it?

Trump's problem isn't old news, it's new news. It seems like he can barely go a couple of days without mouthing off on camera. If he stopped saying outrageous things, people would stop reporting on them. He's shoveling coal into a fire and then complaining that it keeps getting hotter.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 16, 2016, 07:22:16 PM
Seriati, I guess we'll just see how things go. I still think it would have been better, given my limited information, to take on Bernie, but maybe you're right and their decision was the result of long-term projections. I think the party is in more trouble than they're letting on, though, and I think Bernie may have been a way to fix things for themselves.

Regarding my "good MEN like Sen. Sanders" comment, I can see we've come a long way and down a muddy path with the English language in the last 10-15 years. This is nothing against you, but the fact that "man" is now routinely taken to mean "male" as opposed to "human being" (as in, MANkind) is really sad to me.

ETA - It's true, though, that the language has an asymmetry given the patriarchal past, insofar as "good man" doesn't have any special gender connotation (i.e. a good man, qua being a male) whereas if one was to employ "good woman" it seems to connote more of the womanness rather than the humanness. In any case I meant it purely as "good person".
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: D.W. on August 17, 2016, 09:39:34 AM
Quote
Anytime I hear the phrase "old news" I know Clinton's strategy is effective.
Yeah, "crooked Hillary" is old news. He started calling her that weeks ago. What's there to report about it?

Trump's problem isn't old news, it's new news. It seems like he can barely go a couple of days without mouthing off on camera. If he stopped saying outrageous things, people would stop reporting on them. He's shoveling coal into a fire and then complaining that it keeps getting hotter.
It's only a problem if you are trying to win.  ;)  If your goal is publicity, both the acts and the feigned outrage of how his detractors react to them, are steps along the same path.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: D.W. on August 17, 2016, 09:42:04 AM
Quote
This is nothing against you, but the fact that "man" is now routinely taken to mean "male" as opposed to "human being" (as in, MANkind) is really sad to me.
While I tend to agree with this sentiment, you did use this language in a thread about sexism being a factor.  If you didn't realize someone would go there, that's kinda sad to me.  :P
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Seriati on August 17, 2016, 09:58:33 AM
What D.W. said, though I only "went there" because the first part was literally "I am woman".  Following that will a call of endorsement of good men is hard to ignore.  Good people is of course a better formulation. 

I still think this all a purely strategic level of analysis.  I happen to think that's the only one Clinton operates on, but if you believe she's sincere, then she hasn't really shown that she thinks Bernie is right in his positions and has only move towards them with reluctance.  That too would weigh heavily against naming him as a spokesperson.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 17, 2016, 01:26:48 PM
Trump's problem isn't old news, it's new news. It seems like he can barely go a couple of days without mouthing off on camera. If he stopped saying outrageous things, people would stop reporting on them. He's shoveling coal into a fire and then complaining that it keeps getting hotter.
It's only a problem if you are trying to win.  ;)  If your goal is publicity, both the acts and the feigned outrage of how his detractors react to them, are steps along the same path.

Pretty much, what is happening plays right into the whole "Trump ran for President for the publicity, not to become President" scenario.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 17, 2016, 01:50:04 PM
What D.W. said, though I only "went there" because the first part was literally "I am woman".  Following that will a call of endorsement of good men is hard to ignore.  Good people is of course a better formulation. 

I understand that the juxtaposition of "woman" and "man" in the same thought brought itself out as a contrast to you, but did you really think it was meaningful within the context? Especially as "good man" is a colloquial term in and of itself and not a mere construction of gender + good that I strung together randomly. "Good person" would have been a fine descriptor to use in the context of what I wrote but I was actually going for a classic usage such as we might have heard in the past in military movies and such, where "these are good men" carries the connotation of camaraderie, more so than merely "good people" which is a generic compliment. The camaraderie element is something I was deliberately including in as part of the theoretic message I was having Hillary say.

So while I can understand an eyebrow raised as you see "woman" followed by "man" and wonder to yourself if there's a deeper meaning there (e.g. "Is Fenring trying to say something about how Clinton needs good males in her campaign") it should have been clear to you that none of what I was saying carried this content. And since I've, to whit, never made sexist comments here before you might have chosen instead to surmise that the incidental juxtapose was just that - incidental and irrelevant. The fact that it occurred in a thread about sexism doesn't somehow increase the likelihood that a given phrase is sexist.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: D.W. on August 17, 2016, 01:59:30 PM
I can't speak for Seriati on this, but I think this is one of those, "Careful, what you said can be viewed as sexist" rather than, "Hey you are being sexist!" things.

It's a close relative to remarking when your friend makes a timely and clever pun.  Someone has to remark on it because it seems obvious the statement was intentionally crafted to provoke the reaction.  Even if just to groan your disapproval at their inappropriate humor.

It never occurred to me for a moment that this was a slip of the tongue.  I assumed you were poking fun at the topic with the choice.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Seriati on August 17, 2016, 02:52:35 PM
What D.W. said, though I only "went there" because the first part was literally "I am woman".  Following that will a call of endorsement of good men is hard to ignore.  Good people is of course a better formulation. 

I understand that the juxtaposition of "woman" and "man" in the same thought brought itself out as a contrast to you, but did you really think it was meaningful within the context?

I actually thought it was intentional on your part.  You were talking about strategy, specifically about her ability to use the I am woman card, and then segued into the strategy of "with good men" like on our side.  People did use to use exactly that strategy, but now it's considered anti-feminist to do so.  It didn't occur to me that you didn't intend that until later.  If you were really going for the "classic usage" it sounds to me like you may not be aware of the baggage that goes with it.

Quote
So while I can understand an eyebrow raised as you see "woman" followed by "man" and wonder to yourself if there's a deeper meaning there (e.g. "Is Fenring trying to say something about how Clinton needs good males in her campaign") it should have been clear to you that none of what I was saying carried this content. And since I've, to whit, never made sexist comments here before you might have chosen instead to surmise that the incidental juxtapose was just that - incidental and irrelevant. The fact that it occurred in a thread about sexism doesn't somehow increase the likelihood that a given phrase is sexist.

Well, I never thought for an instance that you were expressing personal sexism.

I did think you were recommending that formulation (ie that good men support us in our feminist ideals - as opposed to the bad men on the other side) as a good strategy.  Which is why I pointed out the baggage inherent in that formulation.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 17, 2016, 03:10:32 PM
I did think you were recommending that formulation (ie that good men support us in our feminist ideals - as opposed to the bad men on the other side) as a good strategy.  Which is why I pointed out the baggage inherent in that formulation.

I guess the disconnect here for me is that I never for an instant considered "I am woman" to be a feminist statement in the first place, since I don't actually think Hillary is a feminist in any meaningful sense. Her appeal to voters as a 'female candidate' seems to be more about exactly that than about some issues that may be approached better because she's a woman. Since I don't take the term "woman" as she uses it to be a platform statement but really just a blatant statement of gender, I guess I wasn't think of the following sentence in terms of context to feminism either. But I see your point. Thanks for bringing it up, I guess.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Wayward Son on August 17, 2016, 06:41:37 PM
OK, this is it.  The latest, non-sexist scandal that is sure to end Hillarys' campaign, this time.  There is no explanation that is going to make this one go away.  It's right there, in front of you, every time you see her.  No way to hide this one, folks (unlike e-mails).

Hillary needs pillows to prop her up when she sits. (http://heatst.com/politics/must-see-photos-of-hillary-clinton-propped-up-on-pillows/)

She's going down...  :))
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Seriati on August 24, 2016, 09:45:59 AM
Interesting follow-on to this thread.  The current Trump attacks at Hillary's health seem to me to be deliberately designed to force her to be more active (ie to expose herself to attack) on the campaign trail.  Honestly, I can't imagine health concerns causing any voter - at this point - to switch candidates there's way too much polarity.  But responding to them would force Hillary to make public appearances and expose herself to more rigorous press events. 

I'd suspect that her response will be to respond to them as a joke and to try and avoid getting put back into the public focus, but if she can't control her ego (particularly if any of the digs start demeaning her in a way she feels), it's entirely possible she'll bite and expose herself to more effective attacks.

Any thoughts on the naked Trump statues?  Personally I think they're kind of funny, but I can't imagine the level of outrage there would have been if naked Hillary statues had been used in the same way (less now of course as a response, but can you imagine what the media would have said if the first statues were of Hillary!).
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: rightleft22 on August 24, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
The emperor has no cloths doesn’t work as well for Hillary as it does for Trump.
Might not like Hillary but she is pretty much who she is, the status quo establishment.  Who is Trump? What does he really believe? How will he do the things he said he will do. He’s already backing down on his immigration stance which as far as I can see is the main reason he became the republican candidate.

Trump flip flops more than underpants in a tumble dryer and who’s sincerity open to question.
He said himself that he is multiple people, different at home then he is as a businessman and non-politician politician.

Are you asking if the public would be more offended seeing breasts and a vagina then they would be seeing a penis or that making fun of a female’s body is less acceptable then making fun of a male’s body?
The above would imply that sexism is playing a role in the election but that it does not necessarily have anything to do with Trump or Clinton themselves? We just haven’t grown up.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 24, 2016, 11:17:03 AM
A quick Google to find out about the statues brings up that they were nude, very obese, and lacked a scrotum. It seems that one of the involved groups had special emphasis on "Trump has no balls" rather than no clothes.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Seriati on August 24, 2016, 11:27:34 AM
Rightleft22, I think in an election where the Trump campaign has been painted as anti-woman (which is a standard attack pattern against any Republican candidate, which is particularly effective when its not credible claim), the idea that naked woman statues depicting Hillary would be seen as anything but the worst form of sexism is incredibly unlikely.  So yes, I do think we run a double standard here, we are constantly on the look-out for buzz words and lines of attack against Hillary that can be broadened to be attacks on ALL women (regardless of validity of that broadening), and we down play similar anti-male attacks.

I think you also may have a point that many locations would see a nude female statue and react differently than with a nude male statue.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Wayward Son on August 24, 2016, 12:47:32 PM
FiveThirtyEight just posted a discussion about whether Hillary is good or lucky to be ahead in the polls right now. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/has-the-hillary-clinton-campaign-been-lucky-or-good/)  And sexism is one of the possibilities they discuss.

So, come on, fess up.  Which one of you works for FiveThirtyEight? :)
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: AI Wessex on August 24, 2016, 02:25:20 PM
Quote
Any thoughts on the naked Trump statues?  Personally I think they're kind of funny, but I can't imagine the level of outrage there would have been if naked Hillary statues had been used in the same way (less now of course as a response, but can you imagine what the media would have said if the first statues were of Hillary!).
I was on the road last week and missed the one in Union Square, SF by about an hour.  I think they were in keeping with Trump's let-it-all-hang-out campaign style.  If you missed it, the one in NYC's Union Square was removed and the Parks Dept. spokesman released the following statement: ""NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small." If someone tried to do something equivalent for Hillary, it would be someone completely covered up, maybe wearing a Dior burqa.

Quote
So, come on, fess up.  Which one of you works for FiveThirtyEight?
I'm the contributor Nate refers to as "Anonymous" ;).
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: AI Wessex on August 24, 2016, 06:46:15 PM
Trump now claims that Hillary set up her email server with premedication.  I watched her open a jar of pickles with her hands last night. Can he even do that with his tiny hands? Time to move on to the next phony scandal.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 24, 2016, 11:07:01 PM
Quote
I think in an election where the Trump campaign has been painted as anti-woman (which is a standard attack pattern against any Republican candidate, which is particularly effective when its not credible claim), the idea that naked woman statues depicting Hillary would be seen as anything but the worst form of sexism is incredibly unlikely.  So yes, I do think we run a double standard here

Seriati is right.

I agree that the naked statues of Trump was a horrifically wrong act, and that if instead naked statues of Hillary had been put up, that would have be construed as sexist by many. And if I was one who construed it as sexist (instead of coming out of the weird, freakish motivation that led to the Trump statues), I would have been wrong.

This doesn't mean that there is no sexism in some people's minds with respect to Hillary Clinton, but it does demonstrate that people could also be wrong sometimes when they attribute behavior to sexism.

Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 24, 2016, 11:28:14 PM
This doesn't mean that there is no sexism in some people's minds with respect to Hillary Clinton, but it does demonstrate that people could also be wrong sometimes when they attribute behavior to sexism.

Wait, so you don't think it's inherently sexist to create a statue for the express purpose of making fun of a man for his body? Would they have made such a statue for a very picturesque candidate running the same campaign Trump is running? Note that the statues aren't incidentally of him nude; they are deliberately meant to mock his nudity. I literally can't see how that is anything but sexist by the textbook definitions of feminism. Personally I'd prefer to call it "anti-human" than sexist since that term carries less political baggage, but I'm actually curious what explanation you can see for effectively conducting body-shaming of a man where it's his manliness that is directly being mocked. Do you want to avoid using the term for reasons Pyrtolin has previously specified - that it's punching up therefore cannot by definition be sexist?
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 24, 2016, 11:55:05 PM
An interesting question. I am already feeling off guard by my full agreement earlier with Seriati. 

I believe that sexism is not merely a reference to a particular physical characteristic. For example, I would not view sexism or racism as being the same as a hypothetical bigotry of "tall-ism" (an irrational set of prejudices against people who are unusually tall). I am just speculating about my thoughts, but I feel that bigotry is more than an irrational set of prejudices. I could have a weird aversion to people named Seymour, but that just means that I am weird, not that I am a Seymour bigot. I guess I believe that for irrational aversion to be properly characterized as bigotry, it requires at least some social context. My irrational aversion has to be in part a social construct that is shared by some fraction of the community in order for it to be considered bigotry.

I think that the naked Trump images might be more bigotry about old people (or overweight people) than it reflects bigotry about men. It's not exactly parallel because social associations are not exactly parallel. But at the same time, social associations are not always agreed-to, so I could see valid differences in opinion over what constitutes bigotry.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 25, 2016, 12:31:54 AM
I guess I believe that for irrational aversion to be properly characterized as bigotry, it requires at least some social context. My irrational aversion has to be in part a social construct that is shared by some fraction of the community in order for it to be considered bigotry.

I can see your point here, so let's provide some social context to constructing naked effigies of a man designed to ridicule him. It is surely widely known that it's been common practice historically to go after a man by going after his image as a man. In some ways this is parallel with sexist terms used to denigrate women, since especially in the case of men so mocked there is always the sense that they are being cast as inferiors due to their weak nature (as women were). This kind of mockery includes sexual ridicule about orientation, such as calling him a homosexual. It includes potency ridicule, regarding virility, sexual ability/capability, and so forth. It includes the good old penis-size ridicule. And it includes the general insinuation that women would never want such a person. And the list goes on. It bears mentioning that although 'man culture' has tended to mean such ridicule comes from other men, it is by no means limited to men, as even in our day and age I've heard women levying such epithets against men who've earned their ire for one reason or another.

There is a long, rich history of going after a man's manliness to unman him. To be honest I haven't seen the Trump statues in great detail but...come on, they're probably not very generous to him, are they? It's almost preposterous to suggest that these statues are meant to make fun of his age or the mere fact that he's overweight. Maybe the weight part is sort of in the mix, but it strikes me as not the real point. It's a sexual attack, plain and simple.

So there's your social context. The main difference I see between this and between the kinds of rhetoric that has been levied against women historically (slut shaming, body-image shaming, etc) is the relative power between the sexes in society. But I'm not even sure I'd be confident in the premise that there has been more anti-woman rhetoric in culture historically than anti-man. The actual conditions for women were, in a sense, punishment enough for them, but in terms of which sex has endured more plain-old ridicule? I'd say it's a tough call at the very least, especially if you think about frat culture, public school culture in places like England (both of which are notorious for intense hazing and shaming), or even theocratic cultures, I feel like the systemic mockery of certain men (not the popular/powerful ones, of course) has almost been an historical institution. So this is why I asked you whether the real issue was punching up/down, because aside from that I can't see how shaming a man's manliness is anything other than a throwback to this very well-known procedure.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Seriati on August 25, 2016, 09:52:15 AM
An interesting question. I am already feeling off guard by my full agreement earlier with Seriati. 

That's of course the downside of a forum, people often think you're less reasonable than you really are.  The upside of course, is the ability to actually put out complete thoughts and arguments for response in a fairly civilized manner.

While I did highlight that this is an attack that, in my view, would be obviously sexist and labeled immediately as the worst kind of sexism if the genders were reversed, in the spirit of the day, I should also point out that even though its demeaning and low regardless of the gender involved there's good historical reason it would be seen so much worse in the other direction.  That said, it does seem relevant to a topic claiming that Clinton isn't getting parallel credit because she's a woman to point out that Trump isn't receiving parallel protection because he's a man.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Wayward Son on August 25, 2016, 01:10:13 PM
While I agree that the Trump statue is a sexual attack, I don't think it rises to the level of sexism.

Let me explain with a hypothetical.  Although I haven't seen the Trump statue (and don't intend to), let's say that it was not demeaning.  Let's say that it showed a strong, super-hero-type body that was well-endowed in the, ahem, interesting bits. :)  Let's say it showed him, arms akimbo, legs spread out.  What would the reaction be?  Would people think they were making fun of him being a man?  Or that they were showing him to be a strong, powerful, virile leader?

Now imagine a similar statue of Hillary.  With a super-hero-type body, arms akimbo, legs spread out.  Would people think that it was showing her to be a strong, powerful leader?  Or as a whore?

Admittedly, this will depend on the person viewing the statue.  Some will see it one way, some the other.  But I bet the general consensus would be that Trump's super hero statue would be seen as complementary, and Hillary's would be seen as demeaning.

Because the only thing that a nude statue of Trump could show is that he isn't manly enough.  But I can't imagine a nude statue of Hillary that would show she was both womanly enough and a strong leader.  Culturally, I don't believe we're at that point where someone can be womanly and leaderly at the same time.  And that's where the sexism comes in.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: D.W. on August 25, 2016, 01:20:44 PM
It's a brave new world in politics when this is the type of discussion we have leading up to an election.   :o
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Fenring on August 25, 2016, 01:54:13 PM
Admittedly, this will depend on the person viewing the statue.  Some will see it one way, some the other.  But I bet the general consensus would be that Trump's super hero statue would be seen as complementary, and Hillary's would be seen as demeaning.

Actually I bet you if the super-hero statue was of Obama it would be seen as a compliment, and if it was of Trump it would be seen as ridiculous satire. Just think back to the Obama superman shirts and posters during his first campaign and then you'll see that people were literally doing that for Obama. That's where your real comparison lies. A superhero statue of Hillary...I'm not so sure. That one is mired in the fact that Hillary is hated, more so than the fact that she's a woman. If she was the same type of candidate with the same age and body, but beloved, I wouldn't expect people to see a superhero statue of her as being an attack against her, but as it stands I agree it might be seen as ridiculing her in some way. But again, that's only because "here she comes to save the day" is already a ludicrous notion.

Quote
Culturally, I don't believe we're at that point where someone can be womanly and leaderly at the same time.  And that's where the sexism comes in.

This is equivalent to saying that the nude woman statue would be punching down and therefore is sexist. Your assessment of the statue in and of itself involves bringing in the relative power-status between men and women in culture. I understand this position, even though I disagree with it. I think it requires using a patriarchal definition of "womanly" in its very premise, which is ironic. There are plenty of "womanly" traits in nature that should teach us that femininity can be as much an aspect of the hunter as of the nurturer. I might even suggest it's sexist to suggest that acting leaderly isn't already acting womanly.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Wayward Son on August 25, 2016, 05:49:33 PM
Quote
Actually I bet you if the super-hero statue was of Obama it would be seen as a compliment, and if it was of Trump it would be seen as ridiculous satire. Just think back to the Obama superman shirts and posters during his first campaign and then you'll see that people were literally doing that for Obama. That's where your real comparison lies. A superhero statue of Hillary...I'm not so sure. That one is mired in the fact that Hillary is hated, more so than the fact that she's a woman. If she was the same type of candidate with the same age and body, but beloved, I wouldn't expect people to see a superhero statue of her as being an attack against her, but as it stands I agree it might be seen as ridiculing her in some way. But again, that's only because "here she comes to save the day" is already a ludicrous notion.

I may not have been clear enough about this, but the statues I "envisioned" (although not literally, thank god!  :o ) would be naked.  Nude statues of Trump and Hillary, but with the body of Andonis and Venus, rather than more, ahem, realistic versions.  ;)

So they don't quite correspond to the Superman Obama T-shirt of old, or the Ironman Trump T-shirts of today. :)

Quote
This is equivalent to saying that the nude woman statue would be punching down and therefore is sexist. Your assessment of the statue in and of itself involves bringing in the relative power-status between men and women in culture. I understand this position, even though I disagree with it. I think it requires using a patriarchal definition of "womanly" in its very premise, which is ironic. There are plenty of "womanly" traits in nature that should teach us that femininity can be as much an aspect of the hunter as of the nurturer. I might even suggest it's sexist to suggest that acting leaderly isn't already acting womanly.

The patriarchal definition of "womanly" is part of our culture (although people are trying to change it), so your individual thoughts on the subject are immaterial.  Sure, there is a hunter aspect of women, but if many, or most, people don't recognize it, it won't be considered.  You may recognize it, but how about most people?

Yes, it is sexist to suggest that acting leaderly isn't acting womanly.  That's the idea--it's sexist.  Not just a sexual insult, like one made against a man.

A naked man with a great body, standing with spread legs, would be considered "manly."  A naked woman with a great body, standing with spread legs, would be considered a whore.  It's not right, and it demonstrates that the two situations are not equivalent.  Men are attacked for not being manly enough.  Women are attacked for not being manly at all.

So a nude statue of Hillary would be worse, and more sexist, than one of Trump.  It has to do with the cultural context.
Title: Re: Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 25, 2016, 08:43:36 PM
My feelings are that the worst, most visceral aspects the Trump statue was the utilization of societal views towards those who are old and overweight - the presence of male vs. female genitalia was not as shocking to me. But I would bet that it is the exact opposite for many others.