I know this thread is explicitly not supposed to discuss policy, but geez it's depressing to see all the discussion over "ticking boxes." I wish/hope folks will/would vote based on actual issues rather than how much a candidate looks like them.
Klobuchar, Harris, Warren, Gilibrand, Gabbard ... basically, coalesce around *any* woman, and then have that woman run to the middle. Whether a woman emerges, who knows? I think if one does, and she runs to the middle, that increases the chances of victory for the Democrats.
I know this thread is explicitly not supposed to discuss policy, but geez it's depressing to see all the discussion over "ticking boxes." I wish/hope folks will/would vote based on actual issues rather than how much a candidate looks like them.
Let's go Duke!
I don't think the two (issues; looks) are mutually exclusive ... we have a country with a sordid history of legal, racial oppression ... so, if I care about overcoming what I see are the vestiges of that, and I can vote for a candidate who looks like the historically oppressed, maybe that's very reasonable of me to guess that the candidate will be especially sensitive to that history and make overcoming it a priority, an issue I care about ... if I believe women are treated as second class citizens in terms of wages or power, and I can vote for a woman who may be particularly sensitive to that history (as I see it) and will work to overcome it, I'm voting for an issue. In both of these examples, the voter need not be a member of the historically oppressed or a woman (that is, the voter need not look like the candidate), but the voter is rationally making certain plausible assumptions of the candidate based on certain external factors that the candidate will be caring about the same issues the voter cares about. People vote for who they positively identify with. It's reasonable to think that a candidate who has experienced a life where the candidate -- due to immutable characteristics -- might've encountered issues that I care about will be particularly sensitive to those issues.
People want to be heard and understood and cared about and will vote for those who give them that feeling. Sometimes, race or gender factors into that -- not just on the basis of the race or gender itself, but based on issues tied to race and gender, if that makes sense. Trump is sort of the counter-example of this in a way: he's not a poor, uneducated Midwesterner, but those folks felt heard and understood by Trump. Yet, other times, voters will identify with the candidate based in part on immutable characteristics. It doesn't strike me as irrational or particularly pernicious on the part of the voter, or as ignoring issues.
And I think people will always vote on "looks" to some degree and it'll never be based strictly on issues set out in candidates' policy papers. To me, President Obama always looked "cool" (composed). I think that "look" resonated with certain/many voters -- hey, this guy will be faced with stressful times, he looks like he can keep his head (and that's important to me) and make a rational decision. And there are all sorts of non-issue-based affiliations that may sway a voter: hey, this guy was a decorated military hero, and I care about a strong defense and being bold in the world and I bet he'll do that ... (but then you do have to look at the issues, too, as Geo McGovern was a decorated military hero and perhaps wouldn't line up issue-wise with that voter).
^ e.g. the taller person (guy) usually wins.
"We are not provided with wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey through the wilderness which no one else can take for us, an effort which no one can spare us, for our wisdom is the point of view from which we come at last to regard the world." --M. Proust
Well, I think who we'd rather share a beer with can be influenced by the other's looks ... go to some bar on a Friday night and see who's getting offered free beers!
Looks can reflect certain interior qualities (Richard III, Shakespeare). I think President Obama *is* reflective and analytical, and that manifests itself in his cool/composed look. Other people have a haughty, arrogant, disdainful look, and it may very well reflect that they have those unpleasant qualities and deploy them. Nixon looked a little shady (which Herblock knew -- though he gave him one free shave: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-shave/283131/).
The odds that 45 out of 45 Presidents would be men by random chance are less than 1 in 30 trillion (or, less than 0.000000000003%). If you want to be generous and only count the 17 Presidents that served after women could vote, the odds are less than 1 in 100000 (or, less than 0.0008%).
I agree with you that it'd be best to not vote based on gender, race, or age. But the direction to which you're implying that happens is exactly opposite to the way it actually happens the vast majority (but not all) of the time.
Last edited by Wander; 07-13-2019 at 04:22 PM.
I hope that's true, but he's really not polling all that well for a guy that has stated popular policies in a national forum. Obviously, there is no way to compare, but in an alternate universe it would be interesting to see his numbers if his being gay wasn't known. I have a hunch they would be much, much higher.
His even being on the stage IS progress, but I think America has a long way to go before we see true acceptance.
Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."
I don't view that as a problem...I view that as amazingly impressive. In fact, it's possible, maybe even likely, had he not been gay, Buttigieg would not have made it onto the national stage. He probably would have easily been lost in a crowd of dozens of other mayors of midlevel cities. But, he proved that he was electable.
Double edged sword. Hopefully he parlays his success into bigger things, such as the senate. Then perhaps, down the road...
Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."