Me neither. Like me, most have probably never met her. You don’t get to know someone through the act they put on for voters. I do find her politics slightly less appalling than Orange Hitler, and that’s why she’s the lesser evil I’m voting for this election.
Wouldn’t know. Haven’t met any, don’t want to.
Here here. Treating election to the highest office like a high school popularity contest is bad enough to begin with, but people are fooling themselves if they think they know someone based on a career of public performances. We’re not voting for someone to join us for a beer and shoot the shit with. We’re voting for the government official we think will do the least damage (or maybe hope will do some good if you’re more optimistic than I am) based on their platform and the people they’re likely to hand appointments to when they take office.
I couldn’t care less if she’s likeable. Were I to hazard a guess, Obama seems like he’d be quite likeable (if a bit square). But I wish every day for a leader with better (more left-wing and less corporate-friendly, imperialistic) politics.
It’s not part of your mechanic’s job to build coalitions and get other people on board with the repair program. Your surgeon doesn’t need to convince the nurses and anaesthesiologist that the planned procedure is correct.
Heavens! So you didn’t! My deepest apologies. I’ve no idea how that happened and I am sorry for inadvertently misrepresenting you. I was, of course, responding to someone else. How you came to be quoted is a mystery.
I noticed a kind of “toggle” aspect to the reply feature; if you start to reply to someone, then click ‘reply’ again on someone else’s comment the ‘@ recipient’ redirects the message to that person, even if you’ve quoted the first person.
What would opinion polls change, if everyone votes for the party regardless of the policies? Perhaps I’m too jaded, but I can’t see why anything would shift if there’s no urgency to when elections are all but secured as is. A third party like the greens mean that your vote shows more than another drop in the dem’s bucket. Of couse I wouldn’t advocate for that in a swing state, but outside of one it allows a voter to send a clear message. Also, brexit comment was totally unwarranted, where a connection to the 2000s election would have made a much more accurate point.
Edit: Perhaps I’m too cynical in thinking that a mainline partyou wouldn’t move positions outside of desperation, but prior evidence seems to support the assumption.
In 1996 the Greens took ~1% of the vote.
2000 ~3%
2004, 2008, 2012 ~1%
We’re approaching 20 years of the Greens foundering. What evidence can you offer that this has done anything to have an effect the Dems? While you can talk about “sending a message” that’s a serious misunderstanding of what voting is for, and I’ve yet to see any evidence that it works. Clinton is the Dem’s candidate. Really doesn’t look like the last 20 years of “sending a message” worked at all. What will be magically different about this time?
If you want a better Dem. candidate, vote in the primaries, organize, volunteer, and GOTV. If you want to send a message, write a letter, organize, protest, start a petition, or donate to the ACLU/NRDC/whoever. Sometimes that works. Confusedly misusing votes doesn’t have any appearance of working, I’ve seen no evidence of it working, and it has a few notable cases of backfiring terribly.
Evidence that this has done something to effect the Dems can be seen in the fact that “confusedly misusing votes” by supporting the green party has created routes for fundraising and communication that allow outsider candidates to communicate their message. Without the system that’s been built, functioning outside of the party machinery would be all the more futile. You might look at this year’s election and think “well, Clinton is the nominee, therefore nothing has changed”, but at the same time an avowed socialist and former independent was two steps away from being the leader of the free world. This was made possible thanks to the fact that continued green support and existence over these 20 years of floundering creating countless grassroots organizations through public support given by those who in turn supported the Green party in elections. Supporting more than two party platforms in the public eye to be a very valuable contribution, and it illustrates that the world is more than just a red-or-blue sphere of influence.
A well, you seem to be under the impression that one cannot vote green and yet be involved with the democratic party. I support actively being involved and feel it is incredibly important that one can “write a letter, organize, protest, start a petition, or donate”. These are not mutually exclusive from voting for the green party, as your vote on its own will do very little but serve as a supplement. Party affiliation need not be unto death, and the shifts from the 2000 to 2012 election showed that the minds of green voters can be changed if the right candidate appears.
Yes, but the point is that the mechanisms for Sander’s success were set by others who did run third party over the years. One does not vote for the green party in the hopes that they win, and one certainly does not when it contains a possibility that the could result in a cataclysm like Trump. They merely present an option, something that means that you can vote according to your principles when a choice is available.
I don´t understand “likeability” as a qualifier for politicians either, but most people base their voting decisions on it, no matter if its Clinton or other politicians. At least it used to be that way, recently voting seems to have become more of a “fuck you” to whoever you hate most, which is also kind of a likeability decision.
I certainly don´t find Clinton even remotely likeable and knowing she went through a lot to get where she is doesn´t change that. Thankfully voting for her is not a decision I have to make, but if you´re American you don´t have much of a choice, do you?
No, his path through the the primary was rather similar to Obama’s, and not all that different from many Democratic primaries before the DLC began to dominate the party. If anything, it resembles Teddy Kennedy’s run against Carter. The Greens can’t take any credit for it, as much as some of them would like to.
Holy crap the picture with Drumpf is nightmarish!!!
Start with her terrified “Mommy I’m scared!” expression and body language, her hand trying to pull away, and allow yourself to pan out leisurely to Drumpf’s horrific Joker-like grin, and if you still have the stomach soak up the contempt from the dude behind him for a second…
You misunderstand my meaning, which is that HRC’s current platform matches well with her past performance and that her past performance is not made up solely of her Iraq War vote, enforcement of Obama’s foreign policy, or her role as First Lady.
The GOP has been waging a war against Hilary for decades now. Here’s an interesting article comparing the presidential race to Gamergate: http://www.salon.com/2016/09/15/gamergater/
Yes, but I’m sure my elected representative, president, whatever, is not going to do that by being “likeable”.
Probably not being loathed is a plus, but nobody is going to get on any initiative just because gosh, is she fun. They are going to look at what she or he offers, what pressure they bring to the table, etc.
“Likeable” is just well, a minor concern to add to all that.
Yea. Surprisingly she is going to be a centrist Democrat. Who would have thought?
By all means one may think a leftist Democrat would be better, but the current choice is between run-of-the-mill, more-of-the-same Democrat and playing Russian Roulette.
Two errors:
Even if the described bias should exist (and i believe it does) this does NOT mean she would be likable if it did not. This is a plain logical error.
Her appeal as a politician (like any other politician, male or female) results from
a) Appearing trustworthy
b) Appearing competent
I leave it to you to score her here. Generally, it is not relevant how likable a politician is.
This shit triggers the fuck out of me. “HURR YOU DON’T LIKE HILLARY CUS SHE’S A WOMAN!! IT’S THE PATRIARCHY!!”
I don’t like her because she comes across as unauthentic; because she hired Debbie Wasserman Schultz after she was caught working against Bernie Sanders; because of all the meetings she had with Clinton Foundation donors while she was secretary of state; because of that big stupid fake smile she always has slapped on her face; because she voted for the Iraq War and because she supported NAFTA.
Saying that people don’t find her likeable because of her gender is insulting and a lazy way of excusing her MANY failings.
