2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part X

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Phantom Dreamer

Warren is a fake progressive. To see her align herself with Clinton says it all. Warren, at this point, is only known for attacking the low hanging fruit that is Donald Trump. Meh.

Aren't they all just fake progressives? Who would you consider a real progressive?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by BVS

Aren't they all just fake progressives? Who would you consider a real progressive?

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Scotty's a New Hampshire boy now.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by Hewson

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Hewson

You always speak truth


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Oregoropa]

Scott is definitely a Faceman (my heterosexual acknowledgment of a good looking dude)


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[phanan]

Originally Posted by Hewson

Scotty's a New Hampshire boy now.

We don't want him either.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Warren is a significantly better choice than Sanders, as she'll be able to attract Sanders' voters (even though most will vote for Hillary anyways), but without being such a snivelling cunt about it.

[Oregoropa]

Warren is a bit of a double edged sword. Sure you can attract the Bernie crowd and liberal base, but you may risk other votes.

Personally I think it's just fine to have two women on the ticket. However the broader electorate may not be ready for it especially men. Call it sexist, old fashioned, or a desire for balance, it may produce a wash, where for every Bernie voter you pick up you lose another Independent male voter. The demographics are changing in the country but this election will be won or lost on the margins. A Clinton-Warren ticket may push even more white males into the Trump column.

Just playing Devil's Advocate.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[trojanchick99]

Misogyny is alive and well in the US, that's for sure. Still, I think the pros of Warren as VP outweigh the cons.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Personally I think it's just fine to have two women on the ticket. However the broader electorate may not be ready for it especially men. Call it sexist, old fashioned, or a DESIRE FOR BALANCE,

Emphasis mine.

Wow. Were these same people DESIRING A BALANCE for 200+ years? No? Ok, then.

Let's call it what it is, sexism/misogyny.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Warren is a bit of a double edged sword. Sure you can attract the Bernie crowd and liberal base, but you may risk other votes.

Personally I think it's just fine to have two women on the ticket. However the broader electorate may not be ready for it especially men. Call it sexist, old fashioned, or a desire for balance, it may produce a wash, where for every Bernie voter you pick up you lose another Independent male voter. The demographics are changing in the country but this election will be won or lost on the margins. A Clinton-Warren ticket may push even more white males into the Trump column.

Just playing Devil's Advocate.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I definitely see your point here. And most interestingly, the hesitation I've see about an all female ticket, has largely been from women! Not that they wouldn't support it, but they voice that same concern, that the country may not be ready for it.

I still think its worth the risk. She brings not only the Bernie supporters, but the excitement, the passion and the proven firepower against Trump that i think Clinton needs. Along with even more women voters.

Also, the last NBC poll showed Donald dropping in support from white men by 10% since last month.
I think Trump is such an anomaly, that he will either attract or repel certain groups of voters all on his own. If Clinton and Warren are a cohesive, competent, strong alternative - they will pick up the voters he has repelled without much effort I would think.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by anitram

Emphasis mine.

Wow. Were these same people DESIRING A BALANCE for 200+ years? No? Ok, then.

Let's call it what it is, sexism/misogyny.

Exactly.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by anitram

Emphasis mine.

Wow. Were these same people DESIRING A BALANCE for 200+ years? No? Ok, then.

Let's call it what it is, sexism/misogyny.

Very true.
I think once people see them together like they just did in Ohio a couple days ago, where they just knocked it out of the park, this will be a non-issue for any voter that isn't strictly a misogynistic dillhole.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by anitram

Emphasis mine.



Wow. Were these same people DESIRING A BALANCE for 200+ years? No? Ok, then.



Let's call it what it is, sexism/misogyny.

Yes it is sexism, misogyny. I would vote for a Marsha Blackburn-Nikki Haley ticket. As far as balance I was referencing the ticket. Presidential nominees often try to balance or offset their own flaws with a strategic ticket.

There are people voting against Hillary based on gender. Sadly, we have to acknowledge they exist. Hillary could make the brave choice and pick Warren. This may doubly amplify the sexist electorate. Might get people jazzed up in New England and the Cosmopolitan metros of the country. Does she risk poking the hetero-dad-bear in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Midwest.

To echo what Womanfish said. There is opposition to Hillary not just amongst men but Women too. I haven't dug into the polling to deeply but I would venture to cite history that the democratic ticket gets more support from single women than married women. Clinton already has the support of single women. I can't speak for a heterosexual married woman. Would they understand gender balance in a close relationship more because of their lifestyle?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Would they understand gender balance in a close relationship more because of their lifestyle?

well, we know that children do best when raised by two women -- maybe Clinton/Warren are the lesbian moms we need?

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Yes it is sexism, misogyny. I would vote for a Marsha Blackburn-Nikki Haley ticket. As far as balance I was referencing the ticket. Presidential nominees often try to balance or offset their own flaws with a strategic ticket.

There are people voting against Hillary based on gender. Sadly, we have to acknowledge they exist. Hillary could make the brave choice and pick Warren. This may doubly amplify the sexist electorate. Might get people jazzed up in New England and the Cosmopolitan metros of the country. Does she risk poking the hetero-dad-bear in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Midwest.

To echo what Womanfish said. There is opposition to Hillary not just amongst men but Women too. I haven't dug into the polling to deeply but I would venture to cite history that the democratic ticket gets more support from single women than married women. Clinton already has the support of single women. I can't speak for a heterosexual married woman. Would they understand gender balance in a close relationship more because of their lifestyle?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Yes, i believe Clinton is currently behind with married white women. And this is a coveted demo for her. She regularly crushed Sanders in this portion of the Dem electorate, but will need to work for it in the general.

As for the all woman ticket, I do think that there will be a portion of the electorate that will feel "too manly" to vote for them. But I kinda think they would have felt that way with just Clinton, and probably are the type that would be Trump supporters anyway. I don't think she would shed that many votes by picking Warren. I see mostly upside.

[womanfish]

Woohoo!

538 just posted the General Election polling page. It's quite comprehensive and will be fun to follow, especially looking at the swing states, as the election moves forward.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...tion-forecast/

[mikal]

Originally Posted by womanfish

Woohoo!

538 just posted the General Election polling page. It's quite comprehensive and will be fun to follow, especially looking at the swing states, as the election moves forward.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...tion-forecast/

Nice! I love this site.

[BEAL]

Was just coming in to post that.

Clinton with just over a 80% chance of winning.