|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
Northern Ireland27343 Posts
On March 06 2020 05:51 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2020 04:49 Logo wrote:On March 06 2020 03:22 Mohdoo wrote:On March 06 2020 03:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
In Bernie going to repeal the USMCA if elected? Probably not. Just like Trump, we would get some kinda slimmed down version of basically everything he is advocating for. Which is still great. The place where you start negotiations matters a lot. Yeah it's really incredibly damaging and toxic the way the Democrats have adopted a rhetoric of pre-emptive negotiating and then use that horrible tactic to attack other democrats as having unrealistic plans. It's doubly worse because it's politics. When you have something like business asking for a lot is a good idea because it helps you get into the middle, but both sides are motivated to reach a deal so at worst you're missing out on a small edge you could have had (pay a bit more or whatever). Modern Republicans realized, unfortunately correctly, that if the Democrats ask for something reasonable and they say yes, it's a win and boost for the Democrats. So they went into obstruction mode, say no to everything all the time. Starting from way left, then negotiating at the time of the deal at least lets both sides share the victory more and makes it more likely they may get things done, not by much, but somewhat. And if they're going to shoot down all the above scenarios ANYWAYS (likely) then it's ridiculous to not go for the person with the plan that's morally just and inspirational to future politicians/generations. It's a part of the neoliberal system that's really damaging and not always easy to put your finger on. In a social democratic system, the left represents change and offers new ideas, the right then offers the status quo instead. Sometimes those ideas are not popular and so the right gets larger numbers and rejects them, sometimes the opposite happens and the ideas are accepted. I believe I'm paraphrasing Introvert a little bit with this description, but it makes a lot of sense, and is in my opinion a good way to treat new ideas, we don't want to accept everything ever. In a neoliberal system, it's the left that represents doing nothing or not much, and the right offers older ideas that make things worse for people and that we have to choose to accept or reject as the left. The kind of people that have taken the system hostage, the donor class and the bosses, do not want the system to change, so they ensure that when you have a chance to change something, it's always a proposal for something that has no impact on the economic system (social progress or social regression), or something that is abhorrent, like more tax cuts for the rich so that their hold on society grows stronger. Under that political system, change is not threatening to them anymore, only to us, so we are expected to reject it (and if we don't, that's fine with them). Of course we could also elect a true leftist again, so that change that is positive for humans can be the position of the left as it ought to be; but that's much harder to do now that we don't really have a party pushing for us to do that anymore. And both parties will fight us as hard as they can when we try.
Would a black magic resurrected version of FDR count as already term limited or have a clean slate?
Facetiousness I basically 100% agree with what you said though. All the liberal left is these days is largely the same, be a bit nicer to the gays and the minorities and that’s about it. There’s fuck all transformative, radical or (to my tastes) really correct about how all these candidates operate, so how am I supposed to be enthused by them?
|
Followup to my previous post on why Bernie hasn’t gone of offense and needed to. He’s not that far behind Biden. He is lacking momentum from having lost winnable states, partly because of the dropouts of Klobuchar and Buttigieg and Warren staying in past Super Tuesday.
This is more the tack I would expect from someone serious about winning the nomination. He’s drawing distinctions. The Dem field is not just nondescript replacements for Trump. The Dem voters, including those who have popular vote majorities to Bernie in the first primaries, deserve to have a real choice before them, articulated in clear terms.
|
On March 06 2020 10:31 Danglars wrote:Followup to my previous post on why Bernie hasn’t gone of offense and needed to. He’s not that far behind Biden. He is lacking momentum from having lost winnable states, partly because of the dropouts of Klobuchar and Buttigieg and Warren staying in past Super Tuesday. https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/1235728614617907200This is more the tack I would expect from someone serious about winning the nomination. He’s drawing distinctions. The Dem field is not just nondescript replacements for Trump. The Dem voters, including those who have popular vote majorities to Bernie in the first primaries, deserve to have a real choice before them, articulated in clear terms.
It's also reduced to a 1v1 state(Tulsi's still in, but everybody knows she isn't an actual player) where it's easier to show distinction than the rainbow of candidates as of the last debate and the alphabet we had at the start.
|
This feels like a bit of a strange thing to ask, but it has been on my mind lately and I'm curious if anyone has thought about this.
In my eyes, women, such as Warren, have a really hard time in politics being treated as equal to men. But I would also argue that it isn't purely because they are women. Rather, it is because of the general demeanor, personality, ways of talking and other things that are very common to women.
But there are some women who I would simply say "don't speak femininely". AOC is a great example of someone who I think would be taken significantly more seriously than Warren and 99% of women. There is an entirely different method of speaking/gesturing etc that I don't want to describe as "masculine", but I do want to acknowledge as being "stronger", more forceful, without feeling frantic.
Many times when women try to come across as strong in politics, it is instead frantic. I think Tulsi Gabbard is the same way. And I think Gillibrand was also?
Am I crazy here? I truly feel like there are essentially 2 different paths a woman's brain can take and 1 of them is actually very imposing. Maybe that's the right word? AOC and Gabbard are imposing? Look at how Warren and Klobuchar talk. Compare it to AOC. Its like an entirely different method. I truly think AOC would only suffer like -10% from not being male rather than would I would generally consider -30% (this is all hand waving numbers, of course) is what most women suffer from.
|
I think that's getting too wonky and what not about it, though it's partially true maybe?
I think one aspect of it is the shifting demands on women. The barriers that some of these politicians face is ever shifting and some, like Hillary or Warren, probably had to adopt a certain measure or mannerism to get into their professional life and politics.
But left politics (probably more so than other aspects of life) have changed rapidly and it's opened up room for women candidate to be more authentic, or at least not have to curtail into certain molds as much. And that's helping them come across better I think.
|
On March 07 2020 01:04 Logo wrote:
I think that's getting too wonky and what not about it, though it's partially true maybe?
I think one aspect of it is the shifting demands on women. The barriers that some of these politicians face is ever shifting and some, like Hillary or Warren, probably had to adopt a certain measure or mannerism to get into their professional life and politics.
But left politics (probably more so than other aspects of life) have changed rapidly and it's opened up room for women candidate to be more authentic, or at least not have to curtail into certain molds as much. And that's helping them come across better I think.
I think the authenticity and different gender roles over time is true, but it really feels like there is something more "core" going on. But you are right that women are able to open up in a way they didn't used to be able to. When a woman was too defiant, she would simply not move up in the world. Things are better today.
Watch AOC unload on someone and then watch Klob/Warren unload on someone. It is 2 different things happening. One is SIGNIFICANTLY more imposing than the other.
When I watch AOC unload on someone, I think "that is a strong and imposing person"
I do not feel that when Klob or Warren do the same. I don't think its sexism. I think they are fundamentally doing something differently.
|
Canada8990 Posts
Hum, IDK I always found Warren to be the best public speaker and debater out of all the democratic candidate. (at least the major ones) And to me she never came out as being non imposing, and my problem with Hilary certainly wasn't that she was not imposing enough and had more to do with the fact she would have had no problem invading a few more country. But I can certainly get where you're going with this.
On the other side, even tho I can agree on a lot of issues with her, AOC doesn't come out to me as particularly sympathetic or convincing and her being a women probably as something to do with how I react to her sadly.
Edit: It maybe has something to do with the fact that I frequent quite a few AOC style women in my studies and I have heard my fare share of passionate in-classes rant that weren't always particularly pertinent to the situation, not that were necessarily wrong but more that they were uncalled for, or sometime straight up dishonest from people who I know full well know better.
In my very limited experience the men that are prone to do the same kind of intervention generally are just mediocre student and don't last very long.
Of course a political speech is very different than a classroom and you can't expect a politician to give the same nuance or good faith than someone who's more interested in understanding a situation than convincing people, but I just can't shake it.
|
On March 07 2020 01:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 01:04 Logo wrote:
I think that's getting too wonky and what not about it, though it's partially true maybe?
I think one aspect of it is the shifting demands on women. The barriers that some of these politicians face is ever shifting and some, like Hillary or Warren, probably had to adopt a certain measure or mannerism to get into their professional life and politics.
But left politics (probably more so than other aspects of life) have changed rapidly and it's opened up room for women candidate to be more authentic, or at least not have to curtail into certain molds as much. And that's helping them come across better I think. Watch AOC unload on someone and then watch Klob/Warren unload on someone. It is 2 different things happening. One is SIGNIFICANTLY more imposing than the other.
I view that more as a difference between leftist and liberal than a difference between masculine and feminine. There are outliers of course it's not a direct link, but this reminded me of the recent story where Schumer unloaded on Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, which is notoriously infrequent in the first place, and then profusely apologized like a weakling the next day.
|
On March 07 2020 01:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 01:04 Logo wrote:
I think that's getting too wonky and what not about it, though it's partially true maybe?
I think one aspect of it is the shifting demands on women. The barriers that some of these politicians face is ever shifting and some, like Hillary or Warren, probably had to adopt a certain measure or mannerism to get into their professional life and politics.
But left politics (probably more so than other aspects of life) have changed rapidly and it's opened up room for women candidate to be more authentic, or at least not have to curtail into certain molds as much. And that's helping them come across better I think. I think the authenticity and different gender roles over time is true, but it really feels like there is something more "core" going on. But you are right that women are able to open up in a way they didn't used to be able to. When a woman was too defiant, she would simply not move up in the world. Things are better today. Watch AOC unload on someone and then watch Klob/Warren unload on someone. It is 2 different things happening. One is SIGNIFICANTLY more imposing than the other. When I watch AOC unload on someone, I think "that is a strong and imposing person" I do not feel that when Klob or Warren do the same. I don't think its sexism. I think they are fundamentally doing something differently.
I'm inclined to say AOC is speaking with more conviction and moral clarity so that helps, but that's pretty wishy washy. I think when Warren makes an actual conviction based attack (like against Bloomberg in the first debate he appeared) it comes across similar to how you describe. You kinda see it even as she made essentially the same attack in the second debate but with the framing and her forcing the pivot to the topic it's clear there was an aspect of forcing it for political gain and the attack delivery suffered for it.
Warren's weakness is (sort of also her strength it seems?) is that she grounded everything so much in practicality that I think it hurt her ability to speak from conviction or moral clarity. It's hard to do speak with that clarity when you are compromising the moral imperative of your plans to make them more palatable to a hypothetical opposition.
|
On March 07 2020 01:17 Nakajin wrote:
Hum, IDK I always found Warren to be the best public speaker and debater out of all the democratic candidate. (at least the major ones) And to me she never came out as being non imposing, and my problem with Hilary certainly wasn't that she was not imposing enough and had more to do with the fact she would have had no problem invading a few more country. But I can certainly get where you're going with this.
On the other side, even tho I can agree on a lot of issues with her, AOC doesn't come out to me as particularly sympathetic or convincing and her being a women probably as something to do with how I react to her sadly.
I would go a step further and say what I am describing has nothing to do with how good of a speaker or debater you are. It isn't a measure of ability, rather, it is more like a personality trait.
Trump, for example, is amazingly bad at speaking. But the *way* he speaks is very, very, very effective at snapping people in line with him. He is able to command people in a way. Warren, Klob and Clinton can't do that. Its like there is a gland in their brain missing. AOC and Gabbard have it. They have the gland.
If you're saying AOC doesn't 'feel' a lot more charismatic than Warren/Klob, perhaps this isn't as wide-spread as I thought. But to me, it feels like there is a subtle, but important difference between the way AOC/Gabbard and Klob/Warren speak.
It is crucial for women to not be viewed as frantic when they get fired up. I think this is a big thing that influences people's "gut" responses to a candidate.
|
Northern Ireland27343 Posts
On March 07 2020 02:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 01:17 Nakajin wrote:
Hum, IDK I always found Warren to be the best public speaker and debater out of all the democratic candidate. (at least the major ones) And to me she never came out as being non imposing, and my problem with Hilary certainly wasn't that she was not imposing enough and had more to do with the fact she would have had no problem invading a few more country. But I can certainly get where you're going with this.
On the other side, even tho I can agree on a lot of issues with her, AOC doesn't come out to me as particularly sympathetic or convincing and her being a women probably as something to do with how I react to her sadly. I would go a step further and say what I am describing has nothing to do with how good of a speaker or debater you are. It isn't a measure of ability, rather, it is more like a personality trait. Trump, for example, is amazingly bad at speaking. But the *way* he speaks is very, very, very effective at snapping people in line with him. He is able to command people in a way. Warren, Klob and Clinton can't do that. Its like there is a gland in their brain missing. AOC and Gabbard have it. They have the gland. If you're saying AOC doesn't 'feel' a lot more charismatic than Warren/Klob, perhaps this isn't as wide-spread as I thought. But to me, it feels like there is a subtle, but important difference between the way AOC/Gabbard and Klob/Warren speak. It is crucial for women to not be viewed as frantic when they get fired up. I think this is a big thing that influences people's "gut" responses to a candidate.
Interesting can of worms you’ve opened here anyway! I think Warren is actually fine when she’s on attack mode and her knowing her stuff only augments that, it’s when she pulls it back I think she comes across a good bit worse.
|
On March 07 2020 02:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 01:17 Nakajin wrote:
Hum, IDK I always found Warren to be the best public speaker and debater out of all the democratic candidate. (at least the major ones) And to me she never came out as being non imposing, and my problem with Hilary certainly wasn't that she was not imposing enough and had more to do with the fact she would have had no problem invading a few more country. But I can certainly get where you're going with this.
On the other side, even tho I can agree on a lot of issues with her, AOC doesn't come out to me as particularly sympathetic or convincing and her being a women probably as something to do with how I react to her sadly. I would go a step further and say what I am describing has nothing to do with how good of a speaker or debater you are. It isn't a measure of ability, rather, it is more like a personality trait. Trump, for example, is amazingly bad at speaking. But the *way* he speaks is very, very, very effective at snapping people in line with him. He is able to command people in a way. Warren, Klob and Clinton can't do that. Its like there is a gland in their brain missing. AOC and Gabbard have it. They have the gland. If you're saying AOC doesn't 'feel' a lot more charismatic than Warren/Klob, perhaps this isn't as wide-spread as I thought. But to me, it feels like there is a subtle, but important difference between the way AOC/Gabbard and Klob/Warren speak. It is crucial for women to not be viewed as frantic when they get fired up. I think this is a big thing that influences people's "gut" responses to a candidate.
Have you considered that you may be thinking with your penis rather than brain? I don’t mean that to be too insulting, but it’s a natural male tendency. AOC and Gabbard are reasonably young and attractive. Clinton, Warren, and the Klob are older and not so attractive at this point in their lives. Clinton and Warren feel like grandmothers. The Klob feels like a helicopter parent. AOC and Gabbard feel like girlfriend material.
Most men grow up with mothers and grandmothers. The nurturer role is filled. However, men seek out that significant other. Even the ones who have found a significant other tend to have wandering eyes. We are attracted to looks. Is Warren really less charismatic than AOC or is she just older?
Women have to deal with this shit. If they’re young, they don’t have enough experience. If they’re old, they don’t have enough charisma. They can try to get on the male track by being very masculine, which has worked for some women, but that also puts off a lot of people. So women tend to need to over-perform to get elected.
If we ever want a female president, I think the better approach is to try to convince the country that it needs a mother. Lean into it. Imagine a debate between Trump and a motherly figure, Trump says something stupidly brash and the mother says, “Now Donnie, you behave.” Take the wind right out of his sails.
I look at someone like Katie Porter (who would be a great VP pick if she wasn’t from California, still could be a good pick despite that). She’s someone who has leaned in on that image. She feels like a nurturing type that just wants to take care of people.
Voting for a mom/grandmother probably won’t excite too many people, but they could actually feel good about their vote. Considering today’s “hold your nose and vote” politics,
I think that’s the path forward for women in America.
|
This would probably be unimportant and balanced if you ended up with the women (making up half of the voting population) voting as much as men, and setting their own standards for voting and what they find appealing/imposing in a candidate.
However, currently it is definitely skewed towards one side.
btw : we usually find moms pretty imposing and respect them, no ? You DON'T want to anger mom.
|
On March 07 2020 04:14 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 02:50 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2020 01:17 Nakajin wrote:
Hum, IDK I always found Warren to be the best public speaker and debater out of all the democratic candidate. (at least the major ones) And to me she never came out as being non imposing, and my problem with Hilary certainly wasn't that she was not imposing enough and had more to do with the fact she would have had no problem invading a few more country. But I can certainly get where you're going with this.
On the other side, even tho I can agree on a lot of issues with her, AOC doesn't come out to me as particularly sympathetic or convincing and her being a women probably as something to do with how I react to her sadly. I would go a step further and say what I am describing has nothing to do with how good of a speaker or debater you are. It isn't a measure of ability, rather, it is more like a personality trait. Trump, for example, is amazingly bad at speaking. But the *way* he speaks is very, very, very effective at snapping people in line with him. He is able to command people in a way. Warren, Klob and Clinton can't do that. Its like there is a gland in their brain missing. AOC and Gabbard have it. They have the gland. If you're saying AOC doesn't 'feel' a lot more charismatic than Warren/Klob, perhaps this isn't as wide-spread as I thought. But to me, it feels like there is a subtle, but important difference between the way AOC/Gabbard and Klob/Warren speak. It is crucial for women to not be viewed as frantic when they get fired up. I think this is a big thing that influences people's "gut" responses to a candidate. Have you considered that you may be thinking with your penis rather than brain? I don’t mean that to be too insulting, but it’s a natural male tendency. AOC and Gabbard are reasonably young and attractive. Clinton, Warren, and the Klob are older and not so attractive at this point in their lives. Clinton and Warren feel like grandmothers. The Klob feels like a helicopter parent. AOC and Gabbard feel like girlfriend material. Most men grow up with mothers and grandmothers. The nurturer role is filled. However, men seek out that significant other. Even the ones who have found a significant other tend to have wandering eyes. We are attracted to looks. Is Warren really less charismatic than AOC or is she just older? Women have to deal with this shit. If they’re young, they don’t have enough experience. If they’re old, they don’t have enough charisma. They can try to get on the male track by being very masculine, which has worked for some women, but that also puts off a lot of people. So women tend to need to over-perform to get elected. If we ever want a female president, I think the better approach is to try to convince the country that it needs a mother. Lean into it. Imagine a debate between Trump and a motherly figure, Trump says something stupidly brash and the mother says, “Now Donnie, you behave.” Take the wind right out of his sails. I look at someone like Katie Porter (who would be a great VP pick if she wasn’t from California, still could be a good pick despite that). She’s someone who has leaned in on that image. She feels like a nurturing type that just wants to take care of people. Voting for a mom/grandmother probably won’t excite too many people, but they could actually feel good about their vote. Considering today’s “hold your nose and vote” politics, I think that’s the path forward for women in America.
We had that canidate her name was Amy klobushar and no one thought she had a chance.
|
On March 07 2020 04:14 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 02:50 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2020 01:17 Nakajin wrote:
Hum, IDK I always found Warren to be the best public speaker and debater out of all the democratic candidate. (at least the major ones) And to me she never came out as being non imposing, and my problem with Hilary certainly wasn't that she was not imposing enough and had more to do with the fact she would have had no problem invading a few more country. But I can certainly get where you're going with this.
On the other side, even tho I can agree on a lot of issues with her, AOC doesn't come out to me as particularly sympathetic or convincing and her being a women probably as something to do with how I react to her sadly. I would go a step further and say what I am describing has nothing to do with how good of a speaker or debater you are. It isn't a measure of ability, rather, it is more like a personality trait. Trump, for example, is amazingly bad at speaking. But the *way* he speaks is very, very, very effective at snapping people in line with him. He is able to command people in a way. Warren, Klob and Clinton can't do that. Its like there is a gland in their brain missing. AOC and Gabbard have it. They have the gland. If you're saying AOC doesn't 'feel' a lot more charismatic than Warren/Klob, perhaps this isn't as wide-spread as I thought. But to me, it feels like there is a subtle, but important difference between the way AOC/Gabbard and Klob/Warren speak. It is crucial for women to not be viewed as frantic when they get fired up. I think this is a big thing that influences people's "gut" responses to a candidate. Have you considered that you may be thinking with your penis rather than brain? I don’t mean that to be too insulting, but it’s a natural male tendency. AOC and Gabbard are reasonably young and attractive. Clinton, Warren, and the Klob are older and not so attractive at this point in their lives. Clinton and Warren feel like grandmothers. The Klob feels like a helicopter parent. AOC and Gabbard feel like girlfriend material. Most men grow up with mothers and grandmothers. The nurturer role is filled. However, men seek out that significant other. Even the ones who have found a significant other tend to have wandering eyes. We are attracted to looks. Is Warren really less charismatic than AOC or is she just older? Women have to deal with this shit. If they’re young, they don’t have enough experience. If they’re old, they don’t have enough charisma. They can try to get on the male track by being very masculine, which has worked for some women, but that also puts off a lot of people. So women tend to need to over-perform to get elected. If we ever want a female president, I think the better approach is to try to convince the country that it needs a mother. Lean into it. Imagine a debate between Trump and a motherly figure, Trump says something stupidly brash and the mother says, “Now Donnie, you behave.” Take the wind right out of his sails. I look at someone like Katie Porter (who would be a great VP pick if she wasn’t from California, still could be a good pick despite that). She’s someone who has leaned in on that image. She feels like a nurturing type that just wants to take care of people. Voting for a mom/grandmother probably won’t excite too many people, but they could actually feel good about their vote. Considering today’s “hold your nose and vote” politics, I think that’s the path forward for women in America.
Interesting how this is a cultural thing, since other countries have female heads of state. I don't know if a "soft, motherly" type figure would be appealing since I think many Americans see the world as a hard and violent place. It's weird... being so affluent you'd think we would have a softer view of the world yet we remain quite violent and militaristic. Guess it's a product of divisiveness and fear mongering which has always helped sell things.
|
On March 07 2020 05:10 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 04:14 RenSC2 wrote:On March 07 2020 02:50 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2020 01:17 Nakajin wrote:
Hum, IDK I always found Warren to be the best public speaker and debater out of all the democratic candidate. (at least the major ones) And to me she never came out as being non imposing, and my problem with Hilary certainly wasn't that she was not imposing enough and had more to do with the fact she would have had no problem invading a few more country. But I can certainly get where you're going with this.
On the other side, even tho I can agree on a lot of issues with her, AOC doesn't come out to me as particularly sympathetic or convincing and her being a women probably as something to do with how I react to her sadly. I would go a step further and say what I am describing has nothing to do with how good of a speaker or debater you are. It isn't a measure of ability, rather, it is more like a personality trait. Trump, for example, is amazingly bad at speaking. But the *way* he speaks is very, very, very effective at snapping people in line with him. He is able to command people in a way. Warren, Klob and Clinton can't do that. Its like there is a gland in their brain missing. AOC and Gabbard have it. They have the gland. If you're saying AOC doesn't 'feel' a lot more charismatic than Warren/Klob, perhaps this isn't as wide-spread as I thought. But to me, it feels like there is a subtle, but important difference between the way AOC/Gabbard and Klob/Warren speak. It is crucial for women to not be viewed as frantic when they get fired up. I think this is a big thing that influences people's "gut" responses to a candidate. Have you considered that you may be thinking with your penis rather than brain? I don’t mean that to be too insulting, but it’s a natural male tendency. AOC and Gabbard are reasonably young and attractive. Clinton, Warren, and the Klob are older and not so attractive at this point in their lives. Clinton and Warren feel like grandmothers. The Klob feels like a helicopter parent. AOC and Gabbard feel like girlfriend material. Most men grow up with mothers and grandmothers. The nurturer role is filled. However, men seek out that significant other. Even the ones who have found a significant other tend to have wandering eyes. We are attracted to looks. Is Warren really less charismatic than AOC or is she just older? Women have to deal with this shit. If they’re young, they don’t have enough experience. If they’re old, they don’t have enough charisma. They can try to get on the male track by being very masculine, which has worked for some women, but that also puts off a lot of people. So women tend to need to over-perform to get elected. If we ever want a female president, I think the better approach is to try to convince the country that it needs a mother. Lean into it. Imagine a debate between Trump and a motherly figure, Trump says something stupidly brash and the mother says, “Now Donnie, you behave.” Take the wind right out of his sails. I look at someone like Katie Porter (who would be a great VP pick if she wasn’t from California, still could be a good pick despite that). She’s someone who has leaned in on that image. She feels like a nurturing type that just wants to take care of people. Voting for a mom/grandmother probably won’t excite too many people, but they could actually feel good about their vote. Considering today’s “hold your nose and vote” politics, I think that’s the path forward for women in America. We had that canidate her name was Amy klobushar and no one thought she had a chance.
The stapler thrower lady? She was a little bit mom (especially her looks, minus the semi-masculine haircut), but also leaned heavily into masculinity.
She also was terrible at charisma (maybe I’m thinking with my penis), but her attempts at telling jokes were fucking terrible when she was on Real Time with Bill Maher. Yet, she thought she was the funniest person in the world and was “going to beat Trump with humor” (slight paraphrase).
She definitely didn’t come across as the nurturer to me. She wanted to be a fighter.
|
On March 07 2020 04:14 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 02:50 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2020 01:17 Nakajin wrote:
Hum, IDK I always found Warren to be the best public speaker and debater out of all the democratic candidate. (at least the major ones) And to me she never came out as being non imposing, and my problem with Hilary certainly wasn't that she was not imposing enough and had more to do with the fact she would have had no problem invading a few more country. But I can certainly get where you're going with this.
On the other side, even tho I can agree on a lot of issues with her, AOC doesn't come out to me as particularly sympathetic or convincing and her being a women probably as something to do with how I react to her sadly. I would go a step further and say what I am describing has nothing to do with how good of a speaker or debater you are. It isn't a measure of ability, rather, it is more like a personality trait. Trump, for example, is amazingly bad at speaking. But the *way* he speaks is very, very, very effective at snapping people in line with him. He is able to command people in a way. Warren, Klob and Clinton can't do that. Its like there is a gland in their brain missing. AOC and Gabbard have it. They have the gland. If you're saying AOC doesn't 'feel' a lot more charismatic than Warren/Klob, perhaps this isn't as wide-spread as I thought. But to me, it feels like there is a subtle, but important difference between the way AOC/Gabbard and Klob/Warren speak. It is crucial for women to not be viewed as frantic when they get fired up. I think this is a big thing that influences people's "gut" responses to a candidate. Have you considered that you may be thinking with your penis rather than brain? I don’t mean that to be too insulting, but it’s a natural male tendency. AOC and Gabbard are reasonably young and attractive. Clinton, Warren, and the Klob are older and not so attractive at this point in their lives. Clinton and Warren feel like grandmothers. The Klob feels like a helicopter parent. AOC and Gabbard feel like girlfriend material. Most men grow up with mothers and grandmothers. The nurturer role is filled. However, men seek out that significant other. Even the ones who have found a significant other tend to have wandering eyes. We are attracted to looks. Is Warren really less charismatic than AOC or is she just older? Women have to deal with this shit. If they’re young, they don’t have enough experience. If they’re old, they don’t have enough charisma. They can try to get on the male track by being very masculine, which has worked for some women, but that also puts off a lot of people. So women tend to need to over-perform to get elected. If we ever want a female president, I think the better approach is to try to convince the country that it needs a mother. Lean into it. Imagine a debate between Trump and a motherly figure, Trump says something stupidly brash and the mother says, “Now Donnie, you behave.” Take the wind right out of his sails. I look at someone like Katie Porter (who would be a great VP pick if she wasn’t from California, still could be a good pick despite that). She’s someone who has leaned in on that image. She feels like a nurturing type that just wants to take care of people. Voting for a mom/grandmother probably won’t excite too many people, but they could actually feel good about their vote. Considering today’s “hold your nose and vote” politics, I think that’s the path forward for women in America.
I would think you are maybe right if it wasn't for the fact that women also tend to vote the same way men do in this way. Trump won with white women vs Clinton.
As for convincing America we need a mother, maybe not in a country where men attach nuts to their shitty trucks. I simply don't think it would happen. I think AOC could be president, but I don't think Warren or Klob will ever have a remote chance. They simply aren't remotely imposing. They don't carry any strength. Not a big deal to me, as my view is that we should never even listen to a candidate speak. In my ideal world, candidates submit 5 page essays and citizens read it and decide based on that. I don't want a strong or imposing leader, but the country does.
And for whatever it is worth, I can think of someone I know who completely defies the idea that being attractive is necessary for being imposing. This person I have in my mind is quite old and not particularly attractive and she is among the most imposing people I know. The moment she starts talking, people listen. It's like when a pack of dogs here their owner speak. She completely commands a room.
The quality I feel like I am picking up on is present in, at most, 2% of women. It is amazingly rare in my eyes, but AOC and the woman in my mind both (described above, not young) clearly have it. It is notably not present in Warren or Klob. Like I said, I don't know what I am describing. But there is SOMETHING there.
Edit: And Merkel has what I am describing.
|
On March 07 2020 05:06 Nouar wrote:
This would probably be unimportant and balanced if you ended up with the women (making up half of the voting population) voting as much as men, and setting their own standards for voting and what they find appealing/imposing in a candidate.
However, currently it is definitely skewed towards one side.
btw : we usually find moms pretty imposing and respect them, no ? You DON'T want to anger mom.
Yeah, all I’m saying is that a 10% skew is enough to have significant effects in our system. If Clinton got 10% more votes in each state, it would have been a blowout in 2016. So even if this does not effect a large part of the electorate, it still changes elections.
A mom can be imposing, but I think it’s more “you’re going to get it when dad comes home” in our society overall. I do think there’s a need in our politics for the nurturing mother who does still have that “you better not fuck with my kids” attitude. The type of mother who is imposing and respected. However, I don’t think a nurturing mother automatically gets that respect.
I feel like our prominent female politicians aren’t really hitting that mark of the nurturer who is to be respected. Clinton threw that away and tried to be respected as one of the guys, a wonk. Warren and Klobuchar seem to also have tried that path.
AOC and Gabbard still have that “hot” appeal and we’ll see what happens with them as they age.
|
Canada8990 Posts
I'm really not a fan of the whole thinking with your dick/motherly argument about juging women candidate. Women are more juge on their apparence than men for sure and I won't say that there's not stricter genders role that women need to fullfil in other to fit in. But I don't think Tatcher and Merkel were either "girlfriend material" or "moms".
It seems incredibly dismisive both to the men (and women) who find a particular young women politician inspiring and similarly to her as if she only had follower because people have a crush on her.
The whole idea that men are naturaly thinking with their dick or looking for a mom seems like the first step toward the "boys will be boys" mentality.
On March 07 2020 05:06 Nouar wrote:
This would probably be unimportant and balanced if you ended up with the women (making up half of the voting population) voting as much as men, and setting their own standards for voting and what they find appealing/imposing in a candidate.
However, currently it is definitely skewed towards one side.
btw : we usually find moms pretty imposing and respect them, no ? You DON'T want to anger mom.
I'm fairly sure women in America vote more than men?
By the way when I have a second I'll go check if it's true, but I remember reading somewhere that once they are on the ballot the gender of a candidate dosen't have statistical impact on the election results. Where it do have a lot of impact is on navigating the political power structures and actually getting on the ballot in races that are actually winable. Of course I imagine there can be outliers on particular races, especially if there's a lot of mediatic buzz around it)
|
On March 07 2020 05:11 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 04:14 RenSC2 wrote:On March 07 2020 02:50 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2020 01:17 Nakajin wrote:
Hum, IDK I always found Warren to be the best public speaker and debater out of all the democratic candidate. (at least the major ones) And to me she never came out as being non imposing, and my problem with Hilary certainly wasn't that she was not imposing enough and had more to do with the fact she would have had no problem invading a few more country. But I can certainly get where you're going with this.
On the other side, even tho I can agree on a lot of issues with her, AOC doesn't come out to me as particularly sympathetic or convincing and her being a women probably as something to do with how I react to her sadly. I would go a step further and say what I am describing has nothing to do with how good of a speaker or debater you are. It isn't a measure of ability, rather, it is more like a personality trait. Trump, for example, is amazingly bad at speaking. But the *way* he speaks is very, very, very effective at snapping people in line with him. He is able to command people in a way. Warren, Klob and Clinton can't do that. Its like there is a gland in their brain missing. AOC and Gabbard have it. They have the gland. If you're saying AOC doesn't 'feel' a lot more charismatic than Warren/Klob, perhaps this isn't as wide-spread as I thought. But to me, it feels like there is a subtle, but important difference between the way AOC/Gabbard and Klob/Warren speak. It is crucial for women to not be viewed as frantic when they get fired up. I think this is a big thing that influences people's "gut" responses to a candidate. Have you considered that you may be thinking with your penis rather than brain? I don’t mean that to be too insulting, but it’s a natural male tendency. AOC and Gabbard are reasonably young and attractive. Clinton, Warren, and the Klob are older and not so attractive at this point in their lives. Clinton and Warren feel like grandmothers. The Klob feels like a helicopter parent. AOC and Gabbard feel like girlfriend material. Most men grow up with mothers and grandmothers. The nurturer role is filled. However, men seek out that significant other. Even the ones who have found a significant other tend to have wandering eyes. We are attracted to looks. Is Warren really less charismatic than AOC or is she just older? Women have to deal with this shit. If they’re young, they don’t have enough experience. If they’re old, they don’t have enough charisma. They can try to get on the male track by being very masculine, which has worked for some women, but that also puts off a lot of people. So women tend to need to over-perform to get elected. If we ever want a female president, I think the better approach is to try to convince the country that it needs a mother. Lean into it. Imagine a debate between Trump and a motherly figure, Trump says something stupidly brash and the mother says, “Now Donnie, you behave.” Take the wind right out of his sails. I look at someone like Katie Porter (who would be a great VP pick if she wasn’t from California, still could be a good pick despite that). She’s someone who has leaned in on that image. She feels like a nurturing type that just wants to take care of people. Voting for a mom/grandmother probably won’t excite too many people, but they could actually feel good about their vote. Considering today’s “hold your nose and vote” politics, I think that’s the path forward for women in America. Interesting how this is a cultural thing, since other countries have female heads of state. I don't know if a "soft, motherly" type figure would be appealing since I think many Americans see the world as a hard and violent place. It's weird... being so affluent you'd think we would have a softer view of the world yet we remain quite violent and militaristic. Guess it's a product of divisiveness and fear mongering which has always helped sell things.
I don't think it's a cultural thing. It's simply harder to become a female head of state in countries with presidential systems. If it was cultural, America would have its female president long before more socially conservative eastern European countries had their female prime ministers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
