US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

[DanteGabriel]

4 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Trust me, I know Clinton is no saint, and if I should ever forget, someone is around to remind me. And let me just say that whenever a woman runs for office I assume sexism, is affecting the race, because it usually does.

Also, I don't remember anyone slamming most male politicians for affairs their husband had, or dinging them for being insufficiently sympathetic towards their wives' boy-toys. The fact that Monica Lewinsky has been raised as a campaign issue for Hillary Clinton says much, or at least to me.

About Elizabeth Warren...it seems that when she was running for office, she was "dislikable" too.

I'm having trouble remembering the last male politician to have so much attention focused on how he laughs. Hillary Clinton cackles! Might as well call her shrill and hysterical while we are at it.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

4 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Trust me, I know Clinton is no saint, and if I should ever forget, someone is around to remind me. And let me just say that whenever a woman runs for office I assume sexism, is affecting the race, because it usually does.

Also, I don't remember anyone slamming most male politicians for affairs their husband had, or dinging them for being insufficiently sympathetic towards their wives' boy-toys. The fact that Monica Lewinsky has been raised as a campaign issue for Hillary Clinton says much, or at least to me.

Tracker,

As usual, these are absurd red herrings. 

For what it was worth, Hillary Clinton WAS attacked and accused of being a lesbian during Bill's presidency. But more significantly than that, Bill and Hillary Clinton are truly the first "political power couple" in US history in which one was President and the other might actually become President. All of Bill's scandals are going to be imputed to her, since she was essentially a high-level member of his administration.

And, the reality is, it is perfectly legitimate to point out that Hillary now talks a good game about "believing women" who say they were victims of sexual assault, or talking about everyday sexism. But when the shit hit the fan, she has denied, lied, and insulted her way out of all of her husband's sex scandals, some of which were "consensual" although almost certainly immoral abuses of power (Lewinsky), and some of which were not (Juanita Broaddrick's rape claims). 

 

[TrackerNeil]

5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm having trouble remembering the last male politician to have so much attention focused on how he laughs. Hillary Clinton cackles! Might as well call her shrill and hysterical while we are at it.

And when Warren was called a "schoolmarm" while Paul Ryan was a "numbers guy."

Yeah, don't tell me that sexism doesn't have a gigantic effect on how people see politicians.

[Dr. Pepper]

15 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

 I just don't agree with this, and here is where I feel the dismissiveness of Bernie supporters and their issues with Clinton really rests. Gamergate, sexism--I do not know if these are fair charges/comparison. Consider this editorial: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-inexcusable-willful-disregard-for-the-rules/2016/05/25/0089e942-22ae-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html

Clinton is not a saint--at least glancing through her history, it is difficult to say she doesn't have a checkered history in politics. Bernie's pointing to her ties to Wall Street, her seemingly flagrant disregard for the rules--these are attributes Bernie supporters seem unable to accept in the winning nomination. I know this because I went through this myself before evaluating the fallacies in my own thinking, and while some may be rooted in sexism, the majority of the fight against Clinton is not the woman card. I do not think Bernie supporters would fight again Elizabeth Warren, for example, because of the values she represents. I believe this is very much a value based issue for voters on the left. Gamergate is not a fair comparison because it is a comparison that dismisses the core problem Bernie supporters have in supporting Hillary. Instead of addressing the corruption issues, the ties to Wall Street, she dodges it, and people are labeled as sexists. I suppose this is not going to help win those holdouts.

Is gender/sex at play here too? I suppose so. But when reduced to only that, the problem festers. There are ways to bridge this issue with Bernie supporters. That's the way I see it anyway. 

I agree with much of what you are saying, though I think there is more sexism involved that what you allow.  I'm to the left of Warren and while I'm delighted that the leftist platform is on so much display lately and especially that Elizabeth Warren has been a big voice in the process, it's a reality that she never would have made it as far as Bernie and a lot of that comes down to her being a woman.  I have few doubts that Bernie was able to have his message resonate so powerfully due in large part to him being a cooky looking old man.  That wild white hair and deep voice represents things people trust.  Women don't have that natural built in privilege.  When Bernie gets loud, he's simply yelling.  When Hillary gets loud, she's shrill or a bitch or a cunt.  When Bernie laughs, he's just laughing.  When Hillary laughs, she's cackling.  There's a long history of female politicians being treated this way (even a lot of Fiorina's critique had to do with her face rather than her abominable positions).  

So while I think Warren would be a natural fit for Bernie supporters now, it's still an unfortunate reality that she won't be that fit because she'd have started off the race at a severe disadvantage due to being a woman.  So much of the way the arguments are even presented are usually often heavily tinged with sexism and I don't think that can be stated enough. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

4 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

And when Warren was called a "schoolmarm" while Paul Ryan was a "numbers guy."

Yeah, don't tell me that sexism doesn't have a gigantic effect on how people see politicians.

Tracker:

See, this stuff drives me crazy. This is just fundamentally disingenuous nonsense.

The implication is that Ryan and Warren are alike or the same in a certain number of ways, and that they are being perceived differently, and that this difference is wholly attributable to their gender. But there's absolutely no legwork being done to make the case. It's just "here's a guy" and "hey, isn't he perceived differently than Warren!? Sexism!?." 

But the reality is... Paul Ryan and Elizabeth Warren are really not alike. They don't look the same. They don't talk the same. They don't campaign the same. And, you know, they don't have the same professional background. Warren was, and sometimes talks like, a lecturing  professor because, surprise surprise, that's exactly what she was.  And the criticism of Warren as a "school marm" had to do with the specific issue of the commercials she was running for her senatorial campaign which, well, could be perceived as a little "lecturey." And it was said in the context, at least initially, of people who supported Warren and felt like her commercials weren't representing her actual personality. 

[Kalbear]

Quote

I do not think Bernie supporters would fight again Elizabeth Warren, for example, because of the values she represents.

She was a Republican. I think that if she were running against Sanders they'd pull that out, show how ideologically impure she's been, and attempt to crucify her just like they did Clinton. 

Quote

Is gender/sex at play here too? I suppose so. But when reduced to only that, the problem festers. There are ways to bridge this issue with Bernie supporters. That's the way I see it anyway. 

I think there are ways, but I think that you're taking the very best parts of Sanders supporters and pitting them against the worst Clinton ones. When pointed out that there are a fairly large minority of Sanders supporters that are complete insane loons right now, you claim they don't exist or shouldn't be characterized by them. And that's fair, but it's not fair to paint the Clinton supporters with the same unsympathetic brush. 

It is also not only on the winner to bridge, and point of fact most of the time it's the loser that needs to be conciliatory and gracious to the winner, as the winner has more power. Now this isn't the case here because of the Independent thing, but so far the only person who has been giving anything is the Clinton side. Sanders has representation on the DNC plank rules that literally no other losing candidate has ever had. Sanders hasn't done anything except ratchet up his rhetoric as Clinton totally ignores him. 

[Kalbear]

Also, thought this was interesting - Sanders isn't doing well with 'true' independents.The idea here is that Sanders has done well with people who self-classify as independent, but those people are if anything far left of what the Democratic party is and are only choosing to not be Democrats because it isn't left enough for them. (these people also almost always vote Democrat regardless, so Clinton is likely to pick them up in the general anyway, or at worst they won't vote at all). 

But the independents in the general tend to largely be centrists, or unaffiliated with a party because they pick on non-political leaning points of views - and on those, Sanders is basically tied with Clinton. (the really important thing is that Trump is completely hosed with them).

Quote

Sanders did slightly better with Democratic-leaning independents (71 percent favorable) than he did with plain-old Democrats (68 percent favorable), but that appeal does not seem to extend to true independents — those who are most likely to change party allegiances between elections and whose split between the Republican and Democratic candidates nearly matched the split in the nation overall in the last two elections, according to the ANES. In the Gallup poll, Sanders had a 35 percent favorable rating among independents who don’t lean toward either party. Clinton’s favorable rating with that group was 34 percent. Trump’s was a ridiculously low 16 percent.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

it's a reality that she never would have made it as far as Bernie and a lot of that comes down to her being a woman.

Idk if this is accurate. Warren is extremely popular with the base of the party, and could have possibly done better than Sanders. 

[lokisnow]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Idk if this is accurate. Warren is extremely popular with the base of the party, and could have possibly done better than Sanders. 

Yes. I think Warren would have won in a three way race against the two of them. I doubt Bernie Sanders would have doubled O'Malley's numbers were she in the race.

[Dr. Pepper]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Idk if this is accurate. Warren is extremely popular with the base of the party, and could have possibly done better than Sanders. 

I think that's really easy to say now when she didn't actually run.  

[DireWolfSpirit]

I agree Elizabeth Warren is near and dear to the heart of many liberals and I think she couldve  been the nominee if she had went for it this cycle. You cant explain away Hillaries tepid reception from the Bernie wing on sexism, (I think its fears of her for. pol.) not when the same crowd loves Warren. Likely the sexism excuse works for explaining the rights attitude towards her though. They are the "War on Women" party afterall.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

56 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Trust me, I know Clinton is no saint, and if I should ever forget, someone is around to remind me. And let me just say that whenever a woman runs for office I assume sexism is affecting the race, because it usually does.

Also, I don't remember anyone slamming most male politicians for affairs their husband had, or dinging them for being insufficiently sympathetic towards their wives' boy-toys. The fact that Monica Lewinsky has been raised as a campaign issue for Hillary Clinton says much, or at least to me.

About Elizabeth Warren...it seems that when she was running for office, she was "dislikable" too.

 

1

Not to hash this out too much, because I think generally you're more right than me--but typically those types of attacks are coming from Trump, correct? Or the right in general? I meant just the Bernie side as I didn't see these types of attacks against Hillary. Often Bernie supporters are accused of subversive sexism. Which I don't doubt happens either, I just think the Bernie side has valid complaints they want addressed whereas you're right, Trump and others will likely attack her because her husband cheated on her. Which makes no sense.

I remember Warren being branded that way by the right too--and they love pointing out the Native American thing. The anger toward Warren absolutely seems sexist--she is a strong, dominating woman. She doesn't have a lot of scandals (again, the Native American thing, but I forgive most politicians for worse, so whatever), so the vitriol launched against her does seem based in anti-women sentiment. I look up to her, think she's a wonderful person, and sometimes forget how badly she is treated--so she was a bad example. I can't imagine any woman faring too well on a national stage.

Even Sarah Palin, who by all accounts shouldn't have been on the national stage, was pummeled unfairly. I read a book by the sociolinguist William Labov, and he studied the speech patterns of Palin versus Obama and found that both (back in that election cycle anyway) used speech patterns that differed greatly from the "English standard." Palin's was exaggerated in the media and she was crucified for it. Now, she has since gone into meltdown mode on that, but back then Labov demonstrated that she, ultimately, spoke no differently than those around her. It was interesting that Obama, as an African-American, received a pass when he deviated from standard speech patterns, while Palin was hit much harder. Labov didn't make any conclusions on this, but I think this alone demonstrates that men, in general, get a much wider lane to operate in than women.

This is why I chose to support Clinton if she won, and not go the Bernie or bust route. Despite all her scandals, you're right, Clinton has enough BS to deal with in getting elected. How much of those gender roles unconsciously are affecting me I can't say--but I've voted democrat since I went to Guantanamo Bay and saw what George W.'s "Club Med for Terrorists" really looked like. Not voting Democrat this time seems potentially too fueled by subconscious prejudices I don't realize I carry.

And Kal pointed it out too--Clinton is pretty close to Sanders on most of her policies anyway. It probably is time for Bernie to start ramping it down. If he's angering so many, his message will be lost.

 

Dr. Pepper and others, you're right. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

52 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

No they are not. If they want change 'now' they would have to vote for it in every 'now' in which it is possible to vote for change 'now'. As it is they are selectively and weakly voting for change only in the 'now' of a presidential election every four years. Given the structure of our government is designed to resist rapid change, a vote for change 'now' only every four years and unsupported by a vote for change in all the other 'nows' in between is insufficient to elect a legislature and executive capable of implementing the change 'now' allegedly desired by the electorate.

People say they want things to change, but their actions indicate what they say is not genuine given they only support change every four years and sometimes not even then.

Elect Bernie Sanders. He cannot do a fucking thing because no supporting legislature was elected: 1) With him. 2) Before him. 3) After him.

 

But this is absolutely wrong. A lot of people do want change now. Damn near half of those who voted. You can't anger that away.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DireWolfSpirit said:

I agree Elizabeth Warren is near and dear to the heart of many liberals and I think she couldve  been the nominee if she had went for it this cycle. You cant explain away Hillaries tepid reception from the Bernie wing on sexism, (I think its fears of her for. pol.) not when the same crowd loves Warren. Likely the sexism excuse works for explaining the rights attitude towards her though. They are the "War on Women" party afterall.

You kind of can. Again, everyone loved Clinton as recently as 2014. In 2011 the democratic party was actively suggesting that Clinton replace Biden as VP. Her approval rating was over 70%. 

What explains this well is that a lot of people love women when they're in office, and hate women when they're competing for a position. As TN pointed out above this was true of Warren as well. Again, this isn't to say that Clinton has no faults than being a woman, but the notion that they hold Warren up as a great person doesn't quite absolve them of this, especially when she's not running. And when Warren refused to endorse Sanders? Boy, did Sanders supporters consider that as horrible, and that's when the sexist tirades really came out.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

34 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

She was a Republican. I think that if she were running against Sanders they'd pull that out, show how ideologically impure she's been, and attempt to crucify her just like they did Clinton. 

I think there are ways, but I think that you're taking the very best parts of Sanders supporters and pitting them against the worst Clinton ones. When pointed out that there are a fairly large minority of Sanders supporters that are complete insane loons right now, you claim they don't exist or shouldn't be characterized by them. And that's fair, but it's not fair to paint the Clinton supporters with the same unsympathetic brush. 

It is also not only on the winner to bridge, and point of fact most of the time it's the loser that needs to be conciliatory and gracious to the winner, as the winner has more power. Now this isn't the case here because of the Independent thing, but so far the only person who has been giving anything is the Clinton side. Sanders has representation on the DNC plank rules that literally no other losing candidate has ever had. Sanders hasn't done anything except ratchet up his rhetoric as Clinton totally ignores him. 

5

This is fair too. I will admit, up to today, I was in support of Bernie fighting to the convention (despite the fact I'd vote for Clinton), but now I'm not so sure.

[Kalbear]

Quote

But this is absolutely wrong. A lot of people do want change now. Damn near half of those who voted. You can't anger that away.

They do want change now, in the same way that my 4 year old wants a water gun when he sees a big shiny display for water guns. And then as soon as we take him away from said big shiny display he doesn't really care about it that much and forgets about it until the next time he sees a big shiny display. Loki's point is that these aren't people who want real change, and certainly aren't people who want to actually exert effort to gain real change. They want to wave a magic wand, get one dictatorial figure in, and poof, change happens. 

And that's just now how things work in a Democracy.

The Civil Rights movement took 4 years to get anything done and another 4 years to solidify it. Can you imagine people spending 8 years planning and executing protests? Can you imagine most Sanders supporters doing that now? I can't, personally. 

[BloodRider]

9 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I agree Elizabeth Warren is near and dear to the heart of many liberals and I think she couldve  been the nominee if she had went for it this cycle. You cant explain away Hillaries tepid reception from the Bernie wing on sexism, (I think its fears of her for. pol.) not when the same crowd loves Warren. Likely the sexism excuse works for explaining the rights attitude towards her though. They are the "War on Women" party afterall.

There is the possibility that they love Warren precisely because she is not running.  Running for office is exhibiting behavior that runs counter to gender stereotypes.  So yes, love for Warren does not dispel notions of Sanders' supporters' sexism.  It may be that they like women who "know their place."

Are we to believe that all Republicans are no longer racist because they supported Ben Carson for a while?

[Dr. Pepper]

6 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I agree Elizabeth Warren is near and dear to the heart of many liberals and I think she couldve  been the nominee if she had went for it this cycle. You cant explain away Hillaries tepid reception from the Bernie wing on sexism, (I think its fears of her for. pol.) not when the same crowd loves Warren. Likely the sexism excuse works for explaining the rights attitude towards her though. They are the "War on Women" party afterall.

As pointed out above, people love women less when they are actively running for office.  I saw or heard somewhere recently about Warren's favorability ratings falling.  I can't recall the exact context and can't seem to find a link to it, but here's one that gives a vague idea of how her favorability started to fall when the idea of her running was being bandied about.  

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They do want change now, in the same way that my 4 year old wants a water gun when he sees a big shiny display for water guns. And then as soon as we take him away from said big shiny display he doesn't really care about it that much and forgets about it until the next time he sees a big shiny display. Loki's point is that these aren't people who want real change, and certainly aren't people who want to actually exert effort to gain real change. They want to wave a magic wand, get one dictatorial figure in, and poof, change happens. 

And that's just now how things work in a Democracy.

The Civil Rights movement took 4 years to get anything done and another 4 years to solidify it. Can you imagine people spending 8 years planning and executing protests? Can you imagine most Sanders supporters doing that now? I can't, personally. 

 

 

 

Agreed. My earlier point was a lot of people want change now, and it isn't going to happen. I felt like Lokisnow was saying that a lot of people wanting change now could be dismissed because Bernie didn't win. The supporters have been impatient and irrational. It's like they suddenly woke up and want it fixed now. That's not the way it works.

Edit: Though, I guess the fear is if Bernie doesn't get it this time, we're stuck with the "status quo" for eight years if Hillary wins. I don't agree with that, there are a lot of reasons Obama didn't finish what he wanted, but considering what he walked into, we're in a lot better shape aren't we? So I guess as I keep tacking on here, what I want to say is a lot want change now, but it doesn't mean they're right. 

[Kalbear]

Quote

It's like they suddenly woke up and want it fixed now. That's not the way it works.

It...kind of is, though. 

I think that for a lot of people there is anger in their lives. They're not doing as well as they think they should, their lives aren't what they expected them to be, things are a lot harder and a lot uglier than they had pictured, and they might be worse off than their parents. But I don't think that anger has a lot to do with what Sanders' platform is about (any more than it really does with Trump). I think that Sanders represents a lot of things to get angry at that aren't actually the real cause of issues, and that makes it convenient. So yeah, blame Big Banks deregulation despite repeated studies indicating that deregulation of banks wasn't the cause of things. Choose to punish the officials at the big banks for...um...some crime, despite there not actually being any crime to punish for. Get free universal healthcare because that's the real problem, and ignore all of the systemic issues surrounding said healthcare. Give everyone free education without addressing why costs of education are going up or even why education isn't leading to more jobs. 

Really, when I see Sanders rally against Wall Street and Big Banks, part of me cheers and goes "YEAH STICK IT TO THE MAN", and part of me asks "how is this different than blaming Mexicans for job losses in the US?"