2016 Election Thread

[ashbury]

Seems hypocritical to me.

Womanhood having been such a huge advantage in all previous presidential elections, I'm with you.

[jimmer]

 

Womanhood having been such a huge advantage in all previous presidential elections, I'm with you.

That's not my point.  My point is, if it's okay to vote for someone because she's a woman, if THAT is the reason instead of her qualifications, then it should also be okay to not vote for someone because she's a woman.  It just shouldn't be a factor, period. Just like it should never be the reason to vote for, or not vote for, a man, though apparently it's okay for some to say they'd never vote for a white man (which, IMO, is just as disgusting as saying they'd never vote for a white woman or a black man or black woman). 

 

We should ask ourselves who is the best American to lead the country, period. Between Trump and Mrs. Clinton, it's Mrs. Clinton.  She gets my vote, not because of her gender, but because she's better than Trump.  Someone shouldn't get bonus points due to race or gender, should just be the best candidate, period.

[Squirrel]

That's not my point.  My point is, if it's okay to vote for someone because she's a woman, if THAT is the reason instead of her qualifications, then it should also be okay to not vote for someone because she's a woman.  Just like it should never be the reason to vote for, or not vote for, a man, though apparently it's okay for some to say they'd never vote for a white man (which, IMO, is just as disgusting as saying they'd never vote for a white woman or a black man or black woman).

 

We should ask ourselves who is the best American to lead the country, period. Between Trump and Mrs. Clinton, it's Mrs. Clinton.  She gets my vote, not because of her gender, but because she's better than Trump.

 

Who is even saying that here?

[Craig Arko]

We should ask ourselves who is the best American to lead the country, period.

 

Gardenhire - Anderson 2020. They can put a gnome on my lawn.

[jimmer]

 

Who is even saying that here?

'And I know of one person who will never vote for another white male in her lifetime if there is a viable, qualified alternative.'

 

You just said you will make sure you never vote for a while male again if there's another viable, qualified option.  Not a better option, just another viable option. So the white male, for you, is already running for President with demerits because he's a white male. Did I misunderstand that, or were you talking about someone else?

 

Why not just take race and gender out off the equation?

[ashbury]

That's not my point.  My point is, if it's okay to vote for someone because she's a woman, if THAT is the reason instead of her qualifications, then it should also be okay to not vote for someone because she's a woman. 

You're still falling into the trap of thinking it's a fair and balanced world.

 

I'll put it another way. If Hillary wins, it will be despite her gender, not because of it. You are focusing your outrage in 180 degrees the wrong direction.

 

Finally, I don't vote for who I think is the best candidate, "period". That is far too black and white. I vote for who I think is best for the country. That's a distinction worth pondering.

[jimmer]

 

You're still falling into the trap of thinking it's a fair and balanced world.

 

I'll put it another way. If Hillary wins, it will be despite her gender, not because of it. You are focusing your outrage in 180 degrees the wrong direction.

 

Finally, I don't vote for who I think is the best candidate. I vote for who I think is best for the country. That's a distinction worth pondering.

-I don't think for a second this is a fair and balanced world.  For example, if the Republicans had a viable male candidate instead of the joke they are running now, I know Mrs. Clinton would have almost no chance.  It disgusts me knowing that the country would actually disqualify her because she's a woman. Women have had no problem leading other countries, don't see why some would think a woman leading ours would be such a problem.

 

-I don't have outrage, I'm just talking about something that I find a bit annoying. I find it annoying that she should be voted for due to her gender, and that's in both ways.  I find it annoying people would vote for her because she's a woman and I find it annoying people WOULDN'T vote for her because she's a woman.

 

-In this discussion, the best candidate is the best for the country.  To me those go hand in hand.

 

[ashbury]

Why not just take race and gender out off the equation?

For starters, because race and gender are two of the most vexing problems our country still faces, so you can't take those out of the equation even if you tried. Race and gender will shape each candidate.

[Squirrel]

 

-I don't think for a second this is a fair and balanced world.

-I don't have outrage, I'm just talking about something that I find a bit annoying. I find it annoying that she should be voted for due to her gender, and that's in both ways.  I find it annoying people would vote for her because she's a woman and I find it annoying people WOULDN'T vote for her because she's a woman.

-In this discussion, the best candidate is the best for the country.  To me those go hand in hand.

Again, I'll ask, since you avoided the question, who here is saying otherwise? No one. Yes, I know ONE PERSON who has said that they don't want to ever vote for another white male if she can help it. IF. Meaning, and as I said, if there is another equally qualified, viable candidate, they would choose thusly. What I find more incredulous, is those of us who could claim to be so objective. No one is. Not one person. None of us is completely unbiased towards gender, sexual preference, race, religion ... not one person.

 

Edit: And I'm not calling anyone here a racist, sexist, etc. But on some level, to varying degrees, we all are. Until we face that, as a country, these problems will continue to exist. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

For starters, because race and gender are two of the most vexing problems our country still faces, so you can't take those out of the equation even if you tried. Race and gender will shape each candidate.

 

Is it possible when judging the best person for the job that you take into account how they were shaped by a trait like race or gender but don't let that trait, in and of itself, weigh on your decision?

 

It just seems like we're getting caught in some nuances that may be important, or utterly irrelevant depending upon some further clarification.

[USAFChief]

I tend to agree with Jimmer here.

 

We need to eliminate race and gender as qualifying/disqualifying traits for many things, elected office included.

 

The best way eliminate race and gender is to eliminate race and gender.  It shouldn't matter.

[TheLeviathan]

Ultimately, isn't removing gender and race from the decision the goal?  That we achieve a point of equality in which we don't let it factor?

 

It can shape the person, but it need not shape our decision directly.

[Craig Arko]

I'm down with that. I'd also eliminate parties, and age and native-born citizenship requirements from consideration.

 

And ultimately, the implicit requirement that the candidate be human. Again in the future, Watson or some more advanced form of AI may actually be the best leader for the country, if not the planet.

 

If we're going to arbitrarily chose what should or should not matter to voters, let's not do the job half-way.

[Squirrel]

I tend to agree with Jimmer here.

 

We need to eliminate race and gender as qualifying/disqualifying traits for many things, elected office included.

 

The best way eliminate race and gender is to eliminate race and gender. It shouldn't matter.

I don't think anyone is arguing that, Chief. Not one. But the original statement seemed to imply that more were voting for her simply because she's a woman and not because they have good reasons to do so. I think many who are celebrating that Clinton is a she and would be the first female president aren't voting for her for that reason alone or even firstly or even at all. They are voting for her because she's the best qualified; that she also happens to be a woman is icing on the cake for some, me included, and considering history, I see nothing wrong with celebrating that. I really don't think you can truly appreciate how and why that is something that many of my gender do find significant and historical. No, it's not how and why I will cast my vote for Clinton, or how I think anyone should or shouldn't cast their vote, but it will be a very happy and proud vote for me to cast. I don't happen to think she's as awful as some on here do who will be holding their noses to vote for her. Do I question some of that? Yes, I do. I've listened to the reasoning and some is justified and some I agree with. Some I find no better than excuses for things below the surface not faced. And I do question the original comment and find it a bit insulting. Seriously, no one questions the people who will vote for Trump because he's a man. It's always phrased the other way.

[TheLeviathan]

I think single issue voting is a widespread problem.  From race to gender to abortion to guns to god only knows what.

 

I wonder if you'd poll the Trump supporters, most of them are voting for him simply because he's not Hillary.  Which is single issue voting run amok as well.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I tend to agree with Jimmer here.

 

We need to eliminate race and gender as qualifying/disqualifying traits for many things, elected office included.

 

The best way eliminate race and gender is to eliminate race and gender.  It shouldn't matter.

No offense but I've heard this line, or something similar, said several hundred times in my life.

 

A white male has said it nearly every time, if not every time.

 

Yes, in a perfect world, no one would care about race or gender. But we simply do not live in a perfect world. Erasing race/gender is easy for a white dude to do. We just snap our fingers and say "uh, I'm totally not paying attention to race or gender anymore", even though we obviously do pay attention to those things because it's impossible not to register the color of someone's skin or their gender upon first glance.

 

Erasure isn't the answer. Acknowledging our differences and accepting those differences as peers is the only way to gain true equality, at least in our lifetimes. Maybe in 300 years when everyone is some shade of brown after generations of interracial mixing can we begin to ignore race but not today and not tomorrow.

[jimmer]

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that, Chief. Not one. But the original statement seemed to imply that more were voting for her simply because she's a woman and not because they have good reasons to do so. I think many who are celebrating that Clinton is a she and would be the first female president aren't voting for her for that reason alone or even firstly or even at all. They are voting for her because she's the best qualified; that she also happens to be a woman is icing on the cake for some, me included, and considering history, I see nothing wrong with celebrating that. I really don't think you can truly appreciate how and why that is something that many of my gender do find significant and historical. No, it's not how and why I will cast my vote for Clinton, or how I think anyone should or shouldn't cast their vote, but it will be a very happy and proud vote for me to cast. I don't happen to think she's as awful as some on here do who will be holding their noses to vote for her. Do I question some of that? Yes, I do. I've listened to the reasoning and some is justified and some I agree with. Some I find no better than excuses for things below the surface not faced. And I do question the original comment and find it a bit insulting. Seriously, no one questions the people who will vote for Trump because he's a man. It's always phrased the other way.

I think I've made it clear that taking into account gender when deciding who to pick is the part that bothers me.  It should be clear that also includes voting for Trump because he's a man.  And I think I've pointed that out in subsequent posts as well.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

What bothers me a little is how some seem fine with saying they want to vote for Mrs. Clinton because it's about time a woman had the office.  In other words, a lot of people seem okay with people voting for her because she's a woman, but then get offended by people who bring up gender as a reason to not vote for her.

Imagine being 100 years old.

 

When you were born, your gender couldn't even cast a vote for president at all.

 

And after 100 years on this planet, you haven't been able to cast a single vote for a president of your gender, a gender that makes up 51% of the population.

 

So, yeah, I can't really fault someone for saying "Clinton is a woman and god damn it, I'm voting for the woman because this should have happened fifty years ago."

 

I don't think it's fair for white people to say people of color and/or women shouldn't be single-issue voters when we've had the luxury of 99%+ representation in our government during our lifetimes.

[Squirrel]

Imagine being 100 years old.

 

When you were born, your gender couldn't even cast a vote for president at all.

 

And after 100 years on this planet, you haven't been able to cast a single vote for a president of your gender, a gender that makes up 51% of the population.

 

So, yeah, I can't really fault someone for saying "Clinton is a woman and god damn it, I'm voting for the woman because this should have happened fifty years ago."

 

I don't think it's fair for white people to say people of color and/or women shouldn't be single-issue voters when we've had the luxury of 99%+ representation in our government during our lifetimes.

AMEN! I <3 this!

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't think it's fair for white people to say people of color and/or women shouldn't be single-issue voters when we've had the luxury of 99%+ representation in our government during our lifetimes.

 

It is somewhat problematic though.  While I sympathize with the emotion behind it, celebrating voting based on race or gender is still divisive in a way and pushes some to be divisive in the opposite way.  It's also a form of protest vote that can be dangerous for reasons this election makes quite evident.  

 

But single issue voting is widespread, so I can't begrudge that sort of single issue voting when other people have far, far worse single issue reasons.  

 

I just try to avoid it personally, which seemed to me to be what jimmer was saying.

[Squirrel]

It is somewhat problematic though.  While I sympathize with the emotion behind it, celebrating voting based on race or gender is still divisive in a way and pushes some to be divisive in the opposite way.  It's also a form of protest vote that can be dangerous for reasons this election makes quite evident.  

 

But single issue voting is widespread, so I can't begrudge that sort of single issue voting when other people have far, far worse single issue reasons.  

 

I just try to avoid it personally, which seemed to me to be what jimmer was saying.

We celebrate candidates when they win. Period. Should we not do that? I think it's hugely more problematic when we don't or can't celebrate the first woman president because what ... it looks improper or biased?

[TheLeviathan]

 

We celebrate candidates when they win. Period. Should we not do that? I think it's hugely more problematic when we don't or can't celebrate the first woman president because what ... it looks improper or biased?

 

I think you conflated two things.  I was talking about why someone votes, not that they celebrate an achievement.  Those are different.

 

We can celebrate that accomplishment, but our reasons for voting should be more than that IMO.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It is somewhat problematic though.  While I sympathize with the emotion behind it, celebrating voting based on race or gender is still divisive in a way and pushes some to be divisive in the opposite way.  It's also a form of protest vote that can be dangerous for reasons this election makes quite evident.  

 

But single issue voting is widespread, so I can't begrudge that sort of single issue voting when other people have far, far worse single issue reasons.  

 

I just try to avoid it personally, which seemed to me to be what jimmer was saying.

Sure, I generally try to avoid it as well but we're in a position that makes it really easy to take the high ground on such things. We don't have a frame of reference for being either underrepresented or not represented at all in government.

 

Rip the band-aid off, get a woman in the Oval Office for four years, and I suspect this kind of single-issue voting goes away in time as we see more equal representation in all levels of government.

 

But, in the meantime, I won't criticize people for feeling a connection with a gender/race and casting a ballot because of that connection.

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Sure, I generally try to avoid it as well but we're in a position that makes it really easy to take the high ground on such things. We don't have a frame of reference for being either underrepresented or not represented at all in government.

 

Rip the band-aid off, get a woman in the Oval Office for four years, and I suspect this kind of single-issue voting goes away in time as we see more equal representation in all levels of government.

 

But, in the meantime, I won't criticize people for feeling a connection with a gender/race and casting a ballot because of that connection.

 

Will it go away though?  I don't think Obama eliminated that.  I don't think Hillary will either.

 

Single issue voters are that for a reason, they don't tend to budge off that issue easily.  Which is part of why I have a problem with it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Will it go away though?  I don't think Obama eliminated that.  I don't think Hillary will either.

 

Single issue voters are that for a reason, they don't tend to budge off that issue easily.  Which is part of why I have a problem with it.

Expecting it to go away entirely just because one black man/white woman got into the White House isn't really reasonable, in my opinion. Years of oppression don't go away with a single candidate. I think this is just part of the process and it will take years of exposure/choices until race/gender fades into the second or third tier of importance.

[ashbury]

Ultimately, isn't removing gender and race from the decision the goal?  That we achieve a point of equality in which we don't let it factor?

Doesn't electing a black man, and now a white woman, aid in this goal? Future elections will turn on these questions less and less, as a result.

 

I don't recall Catholicism being an issue in any election since 1960. Race and gender are a little thornier, but JFK's religion was a HUGE deal breaker for many, at the time. We got it over with, and the country is better, in that specific dimension, for having done so. Jimmy Carter's born-again evangelism, likewise.

 

This is what I was getting at when I said I want the candidate who is not simply the "best" in some antiseptic sense, but best for the country. IMO it's an intrinsically good thing going forward, in many ways that are hard to pin down, to have had a black president, given that it was almost a century and a half after Emancipation, when it finally happened. I have the same kind of opinion about 1920, the 19th Amendment, and finally electing a woman.

 

No, I would not vote for Ben Carson, nor Carly Fiorina. It's a tie-breaker, or something close to that. One among many tie breaks, I'm sure. Calling it single-issue distorts things for me, and for the vast majority of Hillary voters.

 

Given the current state of our country, where race and gender stand out a mile in the minds of voters, where Obama's blackness infiltrated so much of the commentary from his opponents and Hillary's gender does now, getting that first breakthrough candidate elected is of value. Not to the exclusion of all else, and not with rosy ideas that it will cure all, but of intrinsic value among all the other things also of value.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Doesn't electing a black man, and now a white woman, aid in this goal? Future elections will turn on these questions less and less, as a result.

 

I don't recall Catholicism being an issue in any election since 1960. Race and gender are a little thornier, but JFK's religion was a HUGE deal breaker for many, at the time. We got it over with, and the country is better, in that specific dimension, for having done so. Jimmy Carter's born-again evangelism, likewise.

 

This is what I was getting it when I said I want the candidate who is not simply the "best" in some antiseptic sense, but best for the country. IMO it's an intrinsically good thing going forward, in many ways that are hard to pin down, to have had a black president, given that it was almost a century and a half after Emancipation, when it finally happened. I have the same kind of opinion about 1920, the 19th Amendment, and finally electing a woman.

 

No, I would not vote for Ben Carson, nor Carly Fiorina. It's a tie-breaker, or something close to that. One among many tie breaks, I'm sure. Calling it single-issue distorts things for me, and for the vast majority of Hillary voters.

 

Given the current state of our country, where race and gender stand out a mile in the minds of voters, where Obama's blackness infiltrated so much of the commentary from his opponents and Hillary's gender does now, getting that first breakthrough candidate elected is of value. Not to the exclusion of all else, and not with rosy ideas that it will cure all, but of intrinsic value among all the other things also of value.

Well said, Ash. Equality in representation is a slow grind and, unfortunately, it's a numbing process for many people. JFK's Catholicism was a big deal, now few care. Obama was a big deal and we're still working through that process. Clinton will be a similar struggle.

 

And to many, this isn't only a matter of political issues. As you said, "what's good for the country" sometimes extends beyond pure politics. I think this is one of those times. Electing the first female president should be a pretty big deal and I'll be glad to see it happen.

 

I kinda wish Hillary Clinton wasn't the person to break that barrier but she's not a bad option, either. I wish the first female president wasn't a mediocre establishment candidate but given the options this November, I'll take what I can get.

[Squirrel]

I think you conflated two things.  I was talking about why someone votes, not that they celebrate an achievement.  Those are different.

 

We can celebrate that accomplishment, but our reasons for voting should be more than that IMO.

Okay, wasn't sure what you were saying. But again, I don't think any of us is in disagreement with the issues of why we vote as we do, or should. I'm just not sure where this is coming from all of a sudden. It just sounds as if there is some 'complaining' or questioning women voting for Hillary. Most are voting for her because she's simply the best choice. It just seems that there is a skepticism being raised unequally. But perhaps I've just misinterpreted.

[PseudoSABR]

I tend to think gender and race (and even religion) tend to be motivating factors rather than deciding factors.  People don't base their decision to pick one candidate over the other based on gender or race (as the Republicans have put forward many candidates that tried to exploit this supposed weakness in the liberal base); rather gender and race effect turn out, people are motivated to get to the polls and vote for someone like themselves, which is completely sensible.

 

What I find problematic is the assumption that gender and race don't actually have baring on how people make their way through life, and would necessarily be core to their experience and thus their qualification to serve a diverse group of people.  There's something very sensible in wanting a leader to have some experience with having to struggle over a stigma which they did not choose.  White men, especially middle-to-upper class white men, are out of touch with this experience; I suppose that's unfair, but it is a reality. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Doesn't electing a black man, and now a white woman, aid in this goal? Future elections will turn on these questions less and less, as a result.

 

No, I would not vote for Ben Carson, nor Carly Fiorina. It's a tie-breaker, or something close to that. One among many tie breaks, I'm sure. Calling it single-issue distorts things for me, and for the vast majority of Hillary voters.

 

I agree.  Also, for the record, I don't think most Clinton voters are single issue, at least not in terms of their single issue being gender.  In fact, I'd argue that was more of a "problem" with Obama.  (And I'd argue most of the single issue voters this year are in the "anyone but Hillary" camp.  Even more than the "anyone but Trump" if you can believe it)

 

I was talking more generally about single issue voting.  I just don't like single issue voting in any respect.  Be the issue party, class, issue, or otherwise.