Hillary Clinton Retains Strong Appeal to American Women

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/182081/hillary-clinton-retains-strong-appeal-american-women.aspx?utm_source=Politics&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles



But clearly she'll lose the nomination because some white men on the internet and in the media hate her!

In a better world, she'd lose because IceSpear forgot to vote.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

According to the latest CNN poll, 64% of American women would be proud to have Hillary as president. And yet "progressive" men like X would rather have Ted Cruz as president than her.

Are you deliberately lying about what I said or do you just lack basic reading comprehension skills?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I seriously thought this was going to be some satire, maybe one of those excellent "If It Happened There" pieces in Slate.

I mean, really. Of course she does. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

It certainly is a surprise to the white male pundits, white male columnists, white male news anchors, white male talk show hosts, and white male internet commentators that assume everyone hates Hillary because they do.

But are white males the only group of people who feel this way about Hillary?

No, of course not. Plenty of women and minorities dislike Hillary too. But the vast majority of them like her. The fact that said groups of white men continue to talk about Hillary as if she's super unpopular and Democrats are desperate for an alternative seems to be harkening back to the days when only white men could vote. Let's just ignore the fact that women and minorities like Hillary and pretend they don't exist!

Let me put this a different way: women will make up 55-60% of the Democratic primary electorate. Do the white male pundits seriously think, after all the enthusiasm about the first female president, that female Dems are going to run into the arms of dull as dishwater Martin O'Malley or Ronald Reagan's cabinet member Jim "Women Can't Fight" Webb? Particularly after the near miss in 2008, screwing over the women in the party who are enthusiastic for Hillary yet again would be equivalent to the party signing its own death warrant in 2016. There's a reason that Warren is the only person who could've possibly defeated Hillary, and it's not just because of her following or ability to raise money. It's also because she was the only one who could neutralize the gender factor.

Right, everyone who doesn't worship last the alter of Hillary is an evil sexist pig.  That's why most of us want Elizabeth Warren instead of Hillary

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

According to the latest CNN poll, 64% of American women would be proud to have Hillary as president. And yet "progressive" men like X would rather have Ted Cruz as president than her.

Are you deliberately lying about what I said or do you just lack basic reading comprehension skills?

Wait, you're getting upset at me for this characterization, when earlier, in response to this, you lol'ed?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It't not outside the bounds of intelligent reading to take from two effortposts arguing that a Cruz presidency would have no negative ramifications for your preferred policies, but positive ramifications for your party, and stating that you would personally be amused by it, that you would prefer that outcome to the alternative. So, if it came down to Hillary vs. Cruz, which would you prefer to win? And if Hillary, why?

I challenge you to find a single post in my entire time on this forum where I said Ted Cruz was preferable to Hillary.  Find one single solitary post.  Hint: No such post exists because I'd never say that.

Casting a write-in is different than voting Republican.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

According to the latest CNN poll, 64% of American women would be proud to have Hillary as president. And yet "progressive" men like X would rather have Ted Cruz as president than her.

Are you deliberately lying about what I said or do you just lack basic reading comprehension skills?

Wait, you're getting upset at me for this characterization, when earlier, in response to this, you lol'ed?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It't not outside the bounds of intelligent reading to take from two effortposts arguing that a Cruz presidency would have no negative ramifications for your preferred policies, but positive ramifications for your party, and stating that you would personally be amused by it, that you would prefer that outcome to the alternative. So, if it came down to Hillary vs. Cruz, which would you prefer to win? And if Hillary, why?

I challenge you to find a single post in my entire time on this forum where I said Ted Cruz was preferable to Hillary.  Find one single solitary post.  Hint: No such post exists because I'd never say that.

Casting a write-in is different than voting Republican.

I think Beet's point was: If electing Ted Cruz would be a positive experience for the country and the Democratic Party overall, then why not support him?

Perhaps you can take a short break from playing the boy who cried sexism to find one post where I said that electing Ted Cruz would be a positive experience for the country.  Screw that, find a post where I even implied it.  Oh right, you can't because I've never done either of those things.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

According to the latest CNN poll, 64% of American women would be proud to have Hillary as president. And yet "progressive" men like X would rather have Ted Cruz as president than her.

Are you deliberately lying about what I said or do you just lack basic reading comprehension skills?

Wait, you're getting upset at me for this characterization, when earlier, in response to this, you lol'ed?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It't not outside the bounds of intelligent reading to take from two effortposts arguing that a Cruz presidency would have no negative ramifications for your preferred policies, but positive ramifications for your party, and stating that you would personally be amused by it, that you would prefer that outcome to the alternative. So, if it came down to Hillary vs. Cruz, which would you prefer to win? And if Hillary, why?

I challenge you to find a single post in my entire time on this forum where I said Ted Cruz was preferable to Hillary.  Find one single solitary post.  Hint: No such post exists because I'd never say that.

Casting a write-in is different than voting Republican.

I think Beet's point was: If electing Ted Cruz would be a positive experience for the country and the Democratic Party overall, then why not support him?

Perhaps you can take a short break from playing the boy who cried sexism to find one post where I said that electing Ted Cruz would be a positive experience for the country.  Screw that, find a post where I even implied it.  Oh right, you can't because I've never done either of those things.

Your initial post in the other thread listed several benefits (Democratic Party might learn a lesson and get a "good nominee" in 2020, and Cruz would destroy the GOP.)

Sure, but it's pretty obvious he'd still be horrible for the country in the mean time and that is ultimately more important.  Voting write-in =/= voting for Cruz.  If Cruz and Hillary were the only options on the ballot, I'd vote for Hillary in a heartbeat, but they are not the only two choices.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Casting a write-in is different than voting Republican.

Not really. At least if you live in a swing state.

I disagree.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

There's no sin in voting third party, especially if one lives in a non-important jurisdiction. It's not equivalent of voting for the Republican/Democrat, etc. etc.

The only difference in opinion for people who say that is, what they really mean is that a vote is not an endorsement of the person you are voting for, but rather an expression of a preference for B instead of A. So if I vote for B, it doesn't necessarily mean that B offers me anything I consider worthwhile, only that I think the scenario of B winning would be better than A winning. Voting for C is me choosing not to contribute to the decision of the question, and I do lose my right to complain. But it's not the same as voting A either.

I reject the premise that the choice is only between A and B.  The only people who have no right to complain are a the ones who simply don't vote at all.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

There's no sin in voting third party, especially if one lives in a non-important jurisdiction. It's not equivalent of voting for the Republican/Democrat, etc. etc.

The only difference in opinion for people who say that is, what they really mean is that a vote is not an endorsement of the person you are voting for, but rather an expression of a preference for B instead of A. So if I vote for B, it doesn't necessarily mean that B offers me anything I consider worthwhile, only that I think the scenario of B winning would be better than A winning. Voting for C is me choosing not to contribute to the decision of the question, and I do lose my right to complain. But it's not the same as voting A either.

I reject the premise that the choice is only between A and B.  The only people who have no right to complain are a the ones who simply don't vote at all.

Unless you are actively campaigning for Choice C or Choice C has a legitimate shot, you might as well not vote at all than support Choice C. You're basically voting Present.

No, you're really not.  That's a common tactic used by members of both parties to try to delegitimize any desire by others in their party to register their dissatisfaction with their party's nominee.  You're sending the message that your party isn't entitled to your vote and that if they want it, then they need to nominate someone you consider worth voting for.  There's nothing wrong with casting a protest vote, despite all the propaganda the Democratic and Republican parties put out there in a largely successful effort to discourage voters from ever doing so.