The Dislike Is Strong In This Election
Trigger Warning: This post is an examination about how disliked the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are. This is not meant as an attack on Clinton, rather it will hopefully shed some light one the many problems Clinton faces in November. (Thanks to anonymous for this idea.)
It’s like Cersei Lannister v Ramsay Bolton. As Senator Sasse says, “There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two ‘leaders.’ ”
David Weigel writes:
If the rise of Trump has no obvious precedent, neither does an election like this. Clinton, whose buoyant favorable ratings in the State Department convinced some Democrats that she could win easily, is now viewed as unfavorably as George W. Bush was in his close 2004 reelection bid. Trump is even less liked, with negative ratings among nonwhite voters not seen since the 1964 campaign of Barry Goldwater.
“In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) wrote in a widely shared note that asked someone, anyone, to mount a third-party run. “There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two ‘leaders.’ ”
According to RealClearPolitics averages, Trump has an unfavorable rating of 65 percent. Clinton has 55 percent.
Clinton supporters can lament all they want, however Clinton is despised by a large portion of the electorate, even if you don’t know it.
You wouldn’t know it from talking to each candidate’s supporters, who see only one reality — they hate the other choice — and who seem oblivious that much of the nation is defining this election by watching with dismay and deciding whether to bother to participate.
“Everybody likes her,” said Pamela Hatwood, 51, a nurse on disability leave who was fanning herself with an extra Clinton sign in a sweltering gym in Indianapolis last week — one of many supporters who shrugged off questions about whether Clinton’s appeal was too narrow.
“I think she’s such a strong woman that people get afraid,” said Stephen Yanusheskhy, 40, a health insurance salesman. “I’m not worried about the polls. They’re good one week, they’re bad the next week. I feel like they poll the people they want to get a certain result. But once she actually gets the nomination, people will come out in droves. You’ll see more involvement from the gay community, from women and from people of color.”
If you live in Hillaryland, do you continue to stick your head in the sand? Or do you work on a way to get Hillary to change her numbers? How do you do this?
Tags: Donald Trump, Featured, Hillary Clinton
I don’t experience that feeling of dislike for either Hillary or Trump. I like Hillary and think she is qualified to be President; I just wish she had stronger policies on the economy, and i hope she is willing and able to keep us out of some stupid war. In fact I think her economic ideas amount to a continued slide in income inequality and the race to the bottom. Trump is also likable as a celebrity but should never get near the Presidency.
Yeah, Hillary’s numbers are actually going to improve pretty markedly once the convention is over and the majority of Sanders’ supporters come home.
I have a question of the head in the sand Hillary supporters here (nice work on that healing, Nemski, keep at it), has any one started out this race liking Bernie Sanders and now have an unfavorable opinion of him? That’s where I’m at.
Given that the media has yet to be honest about either candidate, I’m not at all surprised.
I don’t dislike Sanders, but I’d say his favorability has dropped with me – mainly because I can’t figure out his end game. That makes me nervous.
I’d also say that Clinton’s unfavorability ratings include Bernie supporters, and that her favorability will rise once the primary is over. (Sorta like how dislike for the ACA included people who didn’t think it went far enough)
@Ben Could you clarify what the press hasn’t been honest about?
I don’t dislike Sanders, and am definitely a supporter of his economic message, but I am tired of his campaign. Starting with not campaigning everywhere (as an excuse for losing in the South), then the Superdelegates whinging, then trying to *get* the Superdelegates to vote for him, then the whining about the Convention seating — he’s been at this for how long now? It is long past time to know what the rules are. The rules of a Democratic primary and convention. Seriously.
I’m surprised you think Hillary’s unfavorable rating has anything to do with Bernie. One has nothing to do with the other. An unfavorable rating number is not based on liking or disliking a candidate, rather it is a poll of how much people actually dislike, I mean REALLY dislike, a candidate.
For instance, I voted for Obama over McCain without our really disliking McCain. Yes, Bernie voters will come back, but how can Hillary stop such high dislike numbers?
BTW the Hillary supporters prove my point about having their head in the sand – they deflect about Bernie rather than Hillary’s high dislike numbers.
Please, without mentioning Bernie or the primaries, how does she fix this?
Nemski, right now Bernie partisans are telling pollsters that they do not approve of Hillary, that they do not favor her, and that they dislike her, and they are telling pollsters that their disapproval, dislike and disfavor are strong.
Once the race is over, and Bernie endorses, and their passions cool, they will begin telling pollsters that yeah, they favor Hillary, they approve of Hillary, and they like Hillary. It happens all the time.
So where her Hillarys on unfavorability is in the mid to high 50’s, it will likely come to down to the 40’s once the fall begins. Indeed, it is already happening. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll had her favorable/unfavorables at 50-50 even.
Nemski, we are telling you how she fixes this, see my answer above.
“Starting with not campaigning everywhere (as an excuse for losing in the South), then the Superdelegates whinging, then trying to *get* the Superdelegates to vote for him, then the whining about the Convention seating”
All insider-y stuff that doesn’t affect most people. I didn’t even hear about seating.
By the way, before Bernie, Hillary’s approval and favorable numbers were in the high 50’s. So Bernie very much has everything to do with it and so I will discuss him despite your order not to.
I think a lot (not all) Bernie supporters, when polled during the primary, would say they disliked Clinton. I think that will change for many (not all) once the primary is over.
This is one of the things that concerns me about Bernie staying in the race and personally attacking Clinton. Yes, that does raise her un-likeability numbers, but she’s not the one raising that number. What exactly is Bernie’s end game? How does he expect to get his supporters to support her? – something he has promised to do.
@Ben Could you clarify what the press hasn’t been honest about?”
glady Pandora…… Trump has been covered like a goofy celeb who says some weird stuff, but is never really taken to task for it. Claims against Clinton (some true, but many of them Benghazi-esqu) have not been questioned, more just mentioned again and again.
It is in the best interest of the CBS stock price for this race to be close, so they will do all they can to make Trump look good (he’ll also boycott their network if they dont, so they are completely submissive to him) while trying to keep the negative narrative of Clinton.
I just hope those people (press) have a moment of clarity before they cause a situation they cant undo. Under a Trump presidency, they will never be allowed to tell the truth again.
Thanks, Ben!
All insider-y stuff that doesn’t affect most people. I didn’t even hear about seating.
Interesting. Nemski even wrote a blog post about it. Still — thanks for telling me about *most people* since I was clearly talking about myself.
Hillary’s unfavorable numbers were at 37% in March 2015 to 46% in May 2016. Democratic voters looked at her unfavorably form 10% to 13%. This is a bigger problem than Bernie Sanders.
Some of that problem is in Clinton getting back in the public eye and in looking for a promotion. Because that is when the usual Clinton Derangement Syndrome BS comes back alive — this time enabled by Democrats who decided that now that stuff is true.
LOL, that is going to be your argument against criticizing Hillary?
HRC also gets the most negative media coverage, with fewer positive stories than any other candidate.
“do you continue to stick your head in the sand? Or do you work on a way to get Hillary to change her numbers? How do you do this?”
I have never had my head in the sand when it comes to Clinton. I do not particularly like her or dislike her. I don’t have a visceral emotional reaction to her or anyone else the way many people do. In fact, I have negative feelings towards those who do allow their emotions to rule their intellect and wish they would just stay home and not even bother because they vote their emotion.
Her negative numbers are a consequence of emotion. Changing her numbers would involve manipulating people on an emotional level which is accomplished by making people feel good that Clinton gets them or is one of them or is really this soft grandmother who oozes compassion for the downtrodden and disenfranchised.
She is qualified to be President on many levels, especially in her comprehension of the complexities or our political process, policy, world affairs, and national security enterprises. Every human being has the capacity to comprehend the plight of others and that includes Clinton, who I believe understands the economic difficulties face by many in this nation.
You don’t vote for Clinton because she is nice and wears warm fuzzy sweaters and holds a puppy on her lap. You vote for Clinton because she can kick ass and take names.
LOL, that is going to be your argument against criticizing Hillary?
I’m not arguing against criticizing Hillary. So take that deflection somewhere else.
LOL at the Trigger Warning language in the post. Did you add that later after publishing? I can’t recall if it was there at the beginning. Because, I did read it as an attack on Clinton supporters, especially the head in the sand comment.
Thanks for the link Cassandra. The media would be a great place for Hillary’s communication team to work on.
The trigger warning was there from the beginning, though it doesn’t seem to have helped much.
My apologies. I missed it.
So what I am reading, and I know you will all correct me if I am wrong, Hillary is not responsible for her negative numbers; the responsibility lies with Bernie Sanders, Bernie’s supporters, the media, and Clinto Derangement Syndrome. So she should just go in as usual and they numbers will begin to track positively for her. Maybe, maybe these numbers don’t even matter.
Why would telling Clinton supporters how to react to the post go over any better than when *some of them tried to tell Sanders supporters how to react? Nemski, I’ve enjoyed you posts over the years, but where were you 8 months ago when this stuff would have mattered? This is my problem with a lot of Sanders supports (something i only kind of consider myself anymore). Everyone was too late to the game. (not you in particular, but….) People who didnt give a crap about voting back when registration deadlines were looming, are now suddenly constitutional experts who have “suffered oppression” for their political views. give. me. a. fucking. break. Where was the support for candidates like Fettermann? no where.
It’s over. Shift the focus to overhauling the congress and keeping a genocidal madman out of the Whitehouse.
“So what I am reading, and I know you will all correct me if I am wrong, Hillary is not responsible for her negative numbers; the responsibility lies with Bernie Sanders, Bernie’s supporters, the media, and Clinto Derangement Syndrome.”
It’s a primary – an extremely passionate one. Is she responsible for some of her negatives? Sure. Are these negatives an accurate reading at this time. Nope.
By that logic Pandor, her positive numbers aren’t accurate either.
No ones are, Nemski. I don’t put much faith in these sorts of numbers. They are like general election polling in May.
@nemski Go back and read what was written about Elizabeth Warren when she was running for senate. There are a lot of similarities there.
Nemski, yes, she is responsible for some of it. Not all of it. Her handling of the email issue and the Goldman Sachs speeches issues have produced negative reactions from myself. But those are the only two issues during this entire campaign where she has done something wrong and it has had an affect on her numbers.
The email issue is about to be resolved and she will have an opportunity to speak on it again and offer a mea culpa that may improve her numbers. The speeches issue is more of a Bernie issue, and that will be improved once the primary is over.
Always remember that the most unpopular and unfavorable candidate in history, George W. Bush was re-elected rather resoundingly. And Bill Clinton was viewed very unfavorably during both of his election campaigns, and won landslides both times. Yeah, the likeability factor is kinda meaningless.
Scroll down in this linked story to see a graph of her favorability ratings over time. You’ll see they crossed into underwater territory in January 2015, well before Sanders started polling over 1%.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280177098
As for the notion that Sanders has increased her negatives, that’s all theorizing on the part of the Hillary Clinton Graveyard Whistling Choir. They have bounced all over the place over the past 25 years; they’ve actually been higher than they are now at times.
All people have to do is 1) like her better than Trump 2) vote for her in November. They don’t have to like her.
@nemski: They can put their heads wherever they want, they still have sand in their eyes, and nothing we say is going to get it out.
Hey, no one has commented on the wonderful image I created for this story. I think it’s kind of awesome.
Pandora can’t figure out Sander’s endgame…But she knows what Hillary’s is?
Sure, that’s it exactly, DV.
After reading a book called Blink, I’ve come to realize and understand that just because I can’t put into words why I don’t like someone that it doesn’t mean I still don’t have reasoning that goes beyond verbally being able to explain.
She’s not likable. She and her husband both seem to toe the line of what is right and wrong and they seem to always benefit from it, and never suffer consequences that normal every day citizens no way in hell could get away with. They take advantage of the system for themselves and their friends. Their friends also happen to be huge donors with deep wallets that shell out a lot of money to spend nights in the White house and get access to it.
She’s establishment to her core. She plays the game. She plays it well. I loathe her for it.
So pandora, what is Hillary’s endgame?
” but I’d say his favorability has dropped with me – mainly because I can’t figure out his end game. That makes me nervous.”
your words, not mine. This implies to me you know what Hillary’s endgame is
To win the Dem nomination (altho she’s already done that) and then the general by running and building on, in most part, on Obama’s accomplishments and to change the composition of the SCOTUS.
Wow. So whatever else she is, she’s A-OK because she’ll appoint some SCOTUS justices.
If the bar is set any lower you’ll have to bury it.
You also ought to look up how long — or rather how short a time — she has been campaigning on being Obama III. That was adopted once she realized her big advantage is among black voters. Don’t be surprised if It is dropped once the general election is underway because she won’t need blacks to separate herself from another liberal.
I’m sorry. I was asked for her end game. I supplied it.
Compelling. I didn’t think Bernie’s “endgame” was confusing. Based on Hillary’s endgame, I can’t see how you don’t know Bernie’s.
DD gave a good answer, and I hope it goes that way. I’m not sure what Bernie’s end game – or should I say exit strategy? – is. I’m not sure what his goals are? Unite the party? VP? Have Clinton adopt his agenda? Change the Dem platform? Will his support be contingent on these things, or not?
“Will his support be contingent on these things, or not?”
Bernie will no doubt endorse Clinton for the presidency, because she is Not Trump. But Bernie is not a messianic figure with followers who will do whatever he says. His appeal is based on issues and Hillary needs to win votes on issues. If not, she can always fall back on being Not Trump and hope that is enough.
“I’m sorry. I was asked for her end game. I supplied it.”
No, you didn’t. All you could provide was your idea of what it should be, which you did.
It makes a good campaign slogan — Bury the Bar. Her cheerleaders are certainly on board with that.
Yes, I did supply it. Her end game is to win the election and continue/build on Obama’s legacy and to appoint judge(s) to the SCOTUS. If I wasn’t clear when I used the word end game (altho I think I was in this context) I clarified it by saying exit strategy.
Hillary’s end game as of October 2015:
“Hillary Clinton becomes the fifth US presidential candidate to appear on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Tuesday night. Clinton says she wants to be president to make it possible for more people, particularly young people ‘to live up to their own God-given potential and defend women’s rights, gay rights and voting rights’”
also,
“I’m not running for President Obama’s third term.”
As I said yesterday, Republican framing from beginning to end.
“make it possible for more people, particularly young people ‘to live up to their own God-given potential”
Lifted straight from GOP talking points. They’re always complaining that liberals want equal outcomes; they say all they’re obligated to do is provide opportunity.
“and defend women’s rights, gay rights and voting rights’”
All of which are under assault not at the federal level but at the state level. If Democrats could get elected at the state level, she wouldn’t have anything to defend.
Her entire campaign can be summed up in the phrase, “Not as awful as those Republicans.” And that’s the only thing Team Hillary at DL can point to, so they’ll do it over and over and over again.
Yeah, Bernie wasn’t going to elect a Supreme Court Justice. Only Hillary was going to do that. Bernie was just going to let them die off and not nominate anyone.
way to come with some strong endgame examples.
If it makes you happy to deliberately misunderstand me, knock yourself out.
I understand you just like Hillary regardless of what she says and does, and are setting aside all the reasons to not like her and using poor examples to not like Bernie yes.
Nope. We disagree. We like different candidates. We like most of what our candidates say and do, and each of us sets aside reasons not to like our candidate. I have not said I do not like Bernie. I’m not running a likeability contest.
I completely understand your support of your candidate. You don’t understand mine. Fine.
I didn’t say I support Bernie or that he’s my candidate, what you just did here lies the entire problem with you and the several of the writers at DL. The problem is when a Hillary supporter says why they like her, they run into a problem. There aren’t facts to support the position or if there are, her position was different at some point along the way.
Here’s an example.
I like Apple because they make a great Android Phone!
Apple doesn’t make Android
I don’t care I still like Apple.
You can like Apple all you want, but facts are facts. Set them aside all you want, but don’t tell me that the reason you like them are based on reality. It’s fantasy, much like nailing down why you Like Hillary
Whatever. You dislike both candidates. You wouldn’t support either. Got it.
You want some of my reasons for supporting Hillary? Ok. Here goes…
I support Hillary because she was the first person in my lifetime to try and change the health care system – and back then no one was addressing that issue. Most employee based coverage was awesome, so most people ignored what was coming on the horizon. She saw it and acted.
I support Hillary because when Hillarycare lost she didn’t quit. She went on to fight for and get the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
I support Hillary because she co-sponsored Ted Kennedy’s immigration reform bill – a bill that, if passed, would have moved us (yes, incrementally) further down the field than we are today.
I support Hillary because when she made that huge error on Nancy Reagan and AIDS she apologized and reached out to the activists and is scheduled to meet with them. I like people who can acknowledge their mistakes and learn from them.
I support Hillary because during her term as Secretary of State (as well as before that) she advanced the message that women’s rights are human rights – and she did this in parts of the world where that message was blasphemy.
I support Hillary because she wants to close tax loopholes that benefit the very rich and ask the wealthy to pay more into Social Security.
I support Hillary because she wants to get rid of the Hyde Amendment.
I support Hillary because I want to expand the ACA not dismantle it.
I support Hillary because she is the most experienced, competent person running for President (That’s my opinion).
Here are some things I was aware of:
Carl Bernstein reports that in 1993, Hillary opposed the decision to prioritize deficit reduction, saying, “You didn’t get elected to do Wall Street economics.”
Sally Bedell Smith reports that in 1995, Hillary and Robert Reich tried (and failed) to get Bill to make a big stink about CEO pay.
George Stephanopoulos, who was in a position to know, referred to Hillary as “the most powerful liberal in the White House.”
A then-obscure law professor named Elizabeth Warren reached out to Hillary and helped convince her to persuade her husband to veto a bank-friendly bankruptcy bill at the very end of the Clinton administration.
These are some of the reasons I like Hillary. You don’t have to agree, but they’re my reasons.
Note: (because these are always necessary.) My listed reasons do not mean that Bernie is against these things. Got it?
@n “Hillary is not responsible for her negative numbers; the responsibility lies with Bernie Sanders, Bernie’s supporters, the media, and Clinton Derangement Syndrome. So she should just go in as usual and they numbers will begin to track positively for her. ”
Basically right. The GOP has been attacking Clinton unfairly for more then 25 years. The whole “she lies” canard is basically a GOP lie in itself. I mean really… compare her “lies” vs. Trump’s real lies…. It’s not even close.
The problem is that Sander’s has played to this narrative, and (in my view) in a wholly unfair manner.
The way to combat this is to defend Hillary from such slander. That’s why this piece was so important:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opinion/sunday/is-hillary-clinton-dishonest.html
With more of that, her favorability ratings will improve. It’s the story that needs to be told, and told again and again.
@DD “has any one started out this race liking Bernie Sanders and now have an unfavorable opinion of him?”
Yep… I really liked him until he started to lie about Hillary. That’s when he lost me.
Hillary represents everything wrong with todays Democratic party. Bernie just needs to be patient. Charges are coming…
@p “You want some of my reasons for supporting Hillary? Ok. Here goes…”
Loved it… That’s a great list.
Thanks, LE! Everyone else seemed to vanish… after insisting I do this.
Whatever lead “du jour” Hillary’s camp is experiencing, and bounce they are expecting when Bernie submits his towel, could be short lived in the general unless she chooses the correct tactics to deflect Trump’s likely fusillade. Should she do the valiant Joan of Arc bit or chose instead to emulate Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.? Should she change course mid stream based on polls or stick with her initial plan?
Everyone else seemed to vanish… after insisting I do this.
And isn’t that interesting? That was a thoughtful list, P. Which is probably why the usual suspects didn’t engage with it. You didn’t give them any room for mansplaining.
One of the things I most admire about Obama is that there were things he wanted to do in office and he never stopped trying to accomplish some of them. Clearly some things are out of reach because there isn’t a Congress to cooperate, but he at least keeps trying. I think Hillary will pick some agenda items and keep working them as well. Without a better Congress who knows how far any of that will get, but I do think she’ll keep working it.
once again, cassandra uses “mansplaining” to mean anything a man says that she doesn’t agree with. isn’t it time for identity-politics fans to find some new cliches?
Wrong. Isn’t it time for ex-anon to figure out a new schtick?
I’ll admit, that after all the badgering (“The problem is when a Hillary supporter says why they like her, they run into a problem. There aren’t facts to support the position or if there are, her position was different at some point along the way.”), I’m surprised no one responded to my comment. Instead, they’ve moved onto other threads and are posting the exact same things said here. It’s like I didn’t speak. Maybe I should just re-post my comment on those threads.
Pandora, your list isn’t the mic drop you apparently think it was. Most of those points are not at issue in this election. It wouldn’t shed any light to do a line-by-line response.
Most of those points are not at issue in this election.
Moving the goal posts again.
She was asked why she supports HRC. And she gave her list. Those points certainly are important to her, but thanks for trying to minimize those.
And when do you acknowledge that you were wrong about HRC’s Social Security stance? Or are you just going to troll this place telling people they aren’t thinking the correct thoughts?
Okay… so your issues are what matters. Got it.
Maybe I should just re-post my comment on those threads.
Maybe you should. It isn’t as though there is anything new in those threads, either.
I find it amazing that people can take a person’s entire life’s work and dismiss everything except the things they don’t like. That’s what FOXNews does.
cassandra, you’re probably right about my repetitiveness (though wrong about my actual point). but i still like to bring it up because your zealotry about this stuff is so annoying. also, when you’re looking for as many voters as possible to stop trump, it’s the kind of stuff that will turn many of them off. your special issues are not the ones most people care about, even many liberals, and certainly not moderates who might otherwise be persuaded.
The presidency is about the future; it’s not a lifetime achievement award.
So all this talk about Hillary’s past don’t count either?
but i still like to bring it up because your zealotry about this stuff is so annoying
Then scroll by. I am not here for your entertainment. And nor am I here to persuade you of anything, so you can turn off your project to police my behavior here. If you aren’t engaging in a conversation, but just policing my tone or behavior you are trolling this site.
“because she was the first person in my lifetime to try and change the health care system”
Not true. And you know who blocked it? The sponsor of your immigration bill.
cassandra, of course you’re here for my entertainment. if you and others weren’t entertaining us, why would anybody follow this site? the wonkery alone is not enough.
“She went on to fight for and get the Children’s Health Insurance Program.”
A good thing. Meets minimum standards for being a Democrat.
“co-sponsored Ted Kennedy’s immigration reform bill”
With poison pills of increased H1-B, and no teeth for workplace enforcement.
Sheesh, puck. In my adult lifetime.
Ex-anon, if you’re going to call out tone and zealotry on DL it will be a full time job. But you aren’t consistent with your criticism. There’s plenty of tone and zealotry policing that could be done on DL (calling people effing morons springs to mind). You don’t call out commenters equally. Why is that?
also, the idea of alienating voters who might be persuaded to help hillary beat trump certainly is part of the political discussion.
“when she made that huge error on Nancy Reagan and AIDS she apologized and reached out”
A routine campaign gaffe, not a “huge error.” Anybody would have apologized to save their electoral skin; apology is not exactly a testament to character.
“she advanced the message that women’s rights are human rights – and she did this in parts of the world where that message was blasphemy.”
Props for that.
“she wants to close tax loopholes that benefit the very rich and ask the wealthy to pay more into Social Security.”
Minimum for being a Democrat.
“she wants to get rid of the Hyde Amendment.”
So has she issued a veto pledge? No? OK then.
“I want to expand the ACA not dismantle it.”
I thought these points were about Hillary?
“Elizabeth Warren reached out to Hillary and helped convince her to persuade her husband to veto a bank-friendly bankruptcy bill”
Go Liz!
This is from the article that LE linked to. This is a DEFENSE of Hillary Clinton:
“Then there’s the question of Clinton raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from speeches to Goldman Sachs and other companies. For a person planning to run for president, this was nuts. It also created potential conflicts of interest, but there’s no sign of any quid pro quo (in a broader sense, companies write checks to buy access and influence, but if that’s corrupt then so is our entire campaign finance system). Bill Clinton, Colin Powell and other prominent figures were speaking for high fees, so she probably thought she could get away with it as well.”
That’s why some of us think she’s not part of the solution.
“Honesty” isn’t about not lying on the campaign trail. What you’ve said previously counts, too. You’ll notice that in court you don’t have to just tell the truth — you have to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I rarely get the sense that Hillary is telling us the whole truth.
But thanks, LE, for demonstrating that for you it’s all about fighting and winning, and very little about actual positions on issues.
cassandra, of course you’re here for my entertainment.
Then police the men here, who are the ones with the issues very much on display. More of this from you is subject to moderation. There won’t be further warnings.
“subject to moderation”: it never takes long for the totalitarian tendencies of a certain type of progressive to show up.
“Everyone else seemed to vanish… after insisting I do this.”
Sorry, was hosting a dinner party.
It’s a perfectly valid list, and what I like about it is it’s personal — those are YOUR reasons for liking her, and they are good ones. They don’t move me, but she doesn’t have to.
ex-anon, if you act like a troll, you get treated like a troll. It isn’t as if you weren’t repeatedly asked to stop.
If ex-anon was consistent in calling out tone and zealotry we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Again.
Seriously. His entire “entertainment” consists of policing my tone.
If we’re policing tone, the term “mansplaining” was brought up, without good reason, by cassandra. If a woman has the same opinion, is it still mansplaining? Men talk to each other this way all the time; are they mansplaining things to each other? The term has meaning in the abortion debates, or the pay equality debates, etc. But when you take it out of that context, is any conversation between a man and a woman open to “mansplaining” charges?
In short, it’s a term intended to belittle. Don’t act huffy when someone feels belittled by it.
If you want to make a point of your sensitivity, it helps to be sensitive yourself.
Still no reason why you selectively call out tone and zealotry. That’s the point, btw.
Everyone here selectively calls out everything. Give me a freaking break. People call things out when they disagree and say nothing when they agree. You’re the one obsessed with the archive, look it up.
The point is that Cassandra’s skin is quite thin, and that she’s a typically totalitarian “leftist.”
Whatever. You don’t see what you do – that you consistently call out women for their tone and zealotry. You have different standards for men and women commenters.
Calling points out and disagreeing on issues is one thing, but that’s not what you do with women commenters. Every time you call a woman out on tone/zealotry (not on what they say, but how they say it) you seem to be saying, “That’s not very ladylike way to say something.” Meanwhile, there’s a ton of over the top comments you give a pass to.
I think there was a request for clarification on the reason “mansplaining” was used. It was specific.
It was essentially a charge of sexism. Is mansplaining not sexist? Is intent important at all? I don’t know. As a man, I’m not in a good place to tell whether or not mansplaining has occurred…. and as not the person who made the comment in question, I cant say if there was sexist intent behind it. BUT there was a request for clarification….. clarification that has not been given.
I dont think the intent on cassandra’s part was to imply that disagreeing with Pandora’s reasons for supporting Clinton is sexist…. or that arguing over such reasons has to be “mansplaining”…… it could be however that it was taken that way. I dont think one can dictate to people how to take your comments or how to react to them. If they dont react they way one think’s they should, perhaps a little more clarification is in order… if one’s intent is to have a real conversation and not just a fight. And the intent of this comment was 100% pragma-splaining
I’m pretty sure I call out DD more than anyone else. Or are you referring to the other commenter?
pandora, “Not ladylike?” my objections have nothing to do with that. is it identity-politics paranoia that makes you think that’s where i’m coming from? lady-ness or lack of it does not influence my opinion on this subject.
“Mansplaining” was brought up with perfectly good reason — noting that P’s response didn’t leave room for the condescension and patronization that the demand that she explain herself came with. That’s mansplaining. And of course, you will have issues with that, but Too Bad. If you don’t want to be subject to having your discourse being labled as “mansplaining”, then cut back the behavior that inspires it.
It is that simple.
This is the Wikipedia definition, which works for me:
and i’ve called out men on this blog, too.
question….. how do you REALLY know any of these subjects are men? You are one of the most condescending people here. You constantly insult people’s ability to understand and talk down to anyone who disagrees with you. That’s a compliment, mind you. As much as it irks me, I understand the reason behind a “blog personality’ and you do it very well. There is always a great deal of knowledge behind it, but let’s be honest. If your handle was Conan or Carl, or something, Youd fit that definition you posted PERFECTLY.
but here i go again, assuming your intent…. something i will always call out… but because im a big strong man who is smarter than you (wrong on both counts) but because assuming someone’s intent (in a conversation) is a quick way to a pointless argument.
LOL, Ben! I’d lay down good money on knowing who is a man on here.
This isn’t about getting into heated arguments about policy. It’s about a dishonest discussion that doesn’t address what Cassandra and I say, and instead focuses on how we said it. It dismisses the point and switches the conversation to another point – and that’s rampant on this thread.
“and i’ve called out men on this blog, too.”
I’d say you called out name calling by DD. You haven’t called out his tone. You’ve called out what he actually said. That’s the difference.
No, actually, I don’t have issues with that, given that you think she is being held to an unreasonable standard. I don’t think mansplaining is an illegitimate term — I just question whether that’s what is happening here.
Anonymous, I can only speak for myself, but the number of times what I actually say is ignored, or even changed into something I never said, can be exhausting. I think back to the #YesAllWomen post and my subsequent “Can You Hear Me Now” post as blatant examples on mansplaining. I reread the #YesAllWomen post/comments a few months ago and the way certain men took a post about women and turned it into men’s concerns was stunning.
The problem with ex-anon is that he polices women’s tones a lot. Does that make me more sensitive to his comments? Probably, but he has an established track record here.
If you want to address my point and call me a name. Fine. Whatever. I may not appreciate that, but you addressed what I was saying. That’s fair game.
Pandora: It took me a while to understand that when you ask a question, you’re actually asking a question, not making a rhetorical point. So a lot of my assholishness (toward you) was due to my failure to understand your style. For that I apologize.
Your comment explaining your Hillary support was good enough for me. I can’t argue with your reasons, even if I don’t place the importance on them that you do.
#YesAllWomen opened my eyes quite a bit, mainly because of your writing on the issue, and for that I thank you.
Thank you for that comment.
I guess the point is… when you’re a woman or a black/brown person or a Muslim, Jew, etc. or a LGBT person you live with so much of this stuff – and that doesn’t mean that minority groups don’t say stupid/clueless things about other minority groups. We all can be guilty of this. The question is (and I do ask a ton of questions, mainly because I’m trying to figure out where people are coming from or if I’ve missed something – and yes, at times to be snarky) what do we do when a minority group points out our behavior? Listen? or double-down?
(and yeah, I’ve been guilty of doubling down. Sorry.)
This raises an interesting point.
I think some people… for the sake of this staying civil, I’m just gonna go ahead and say no one here does it….. just go right to “you’re being _____ist” to end an argument. That is especially effective on people who REALLY dont want to be _____ist.
Maybe the first person genuinely felt attacked based on their identity.. maybe they didn’t like the point. I’ve found…. when dealing with people who make an off-color Jewish related remark…. to ask them what they meant by it. Sometimes they catch themselves, sometime they reveal themselves. BUT. If i just flat out called them a Nazi (unles if course I’m talking to a Trumpiter) I’m not likely to get an honest answer.
Is it possible the “doubling down” is sometimes misunderstood and what “you” are actually seeing is defensiveness at being called something someone really doesnt consider them self to be? Is it even possible ot get them to admit they are being _____ist if “you” flat out (or imply) accuse them of ____sim? Why not just assume they are ignorant (the real definition, not the school yard definition) and attempt to educate first. Flies with honey, people. Flies with honey. (the cool part about that is, you still get to kill the fly)
Hillary represents everything that is wrong with DC. If you think she’s a friend to women you are mistaken. No different than Obama and how little he has done for blacks.