Women in Politics (Be aware or Beware!)

Black Swan

Both the Democrats and Republicans need to advance more qualified women in their ranks or they will pay the price during elections someday. The first party to recognize this will increase their wins overtime.

Not foolish flip-flop "Bridge to Nowhere" Sarah Palin types that pretend to be fiscally conservative while going on six figure shopping sprees with donor monies (including when she spent $75,000 USD in one day at Neiman Marcus), but serious educated and experienced candidates that are as qualified as their male counterparts to govern. And it takes time to qualify someone. You cannot just pop them out of a hat to run for US Vice President with only two terms as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla, Alaska with 6,300 residents, and just beginning the 1st term as Alaska's governor (which she quit halfway after only 2 years) to chair the US Senate, and help govern a very complex nation with over 310 million people, the world's largest GDP, and the most powerful and expensive military (and just an aging McCain heartbeat away from president). The Palin GOP-VP candidacy was an embarrassing farce for both women and men, and typical of the dysfunctional two-party system of US government today.

There has been a gradual demographic shift occurring since the end of WWII from the days of Ozzie and Harriet thinking (male breadwinner; female homemaker) to dual career couples, with women now outnumbering men enrolled in university (as well as in 4-year business degree programmes). Prior to WWII female higher education enrollments ranged in the mid-thirty percentiles (focused on teaching and social work degrees), now over half of all enrollments, and gradually spreading across many formally male dominated disciplines.

This is not a feminist issue, rather a major demographic one that has been occurring overtime in the US no matter what your political philosophy.

This shift may surprise the Republicans should Hillary Clinton win the presidency in 2016. Personally I find her an unimaginative bore, but she is extraordinarily more qualified than Sarah Palin, and is backed by the Clinton machine (the same machine that beat Daddy Bush from winning a 2nd term, so Son Jeb Bush and the GOP better not underestimate her). Sadly, neither party can produce a more qualified female candidate than Hilliary Clinton, and the changing demographics may give her the edge to win (I still have this image of her as an exhausted, worn out looking US Secretary of State).

Of course the Republicans will run the typical male presidential candidate in 2016 against Hilliary Clinton, not having produced a viable alternative in their long and now stagnant condition.

Amerika

The Republican women did pretty well in the Nov 2014 election, despite the ludicrous “war on women” strategy debacle of the Democrats. Republicans elected a net of 47 more women to state legislatures, including two Senate spots, while Democrats lost a net of 75 women in office.

And “typical male?” Why Black Swan, I never pictured you so sexist.

MightyMandarin

What about Elizabeth Warren? She's well educated, former Harvard law school professor and knows her stuff about economic and financial issues. I find her more engaging than Hillary; I've seen her in a few documentaries and she's been really outspoken against how much control banks and corporations have in America. She doesn't have the Clinton-effect behind her, so I don't think she'd beat Hillary, but I think she'd be a better leader than her.

braddun

women don't vote for women politicians in the usa


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/08/why-women-don-t-vote-for-women.html

Brian?

MightyMandarin wrote: »

What about Elizabeth Warren? She's well educated, former Harvard law school professor and knows her stuff about economic and financial issues. I find her more engaging than Hillary; I've seen her in a few documentaries and she's been really outspoken against how much control banks and corporations have in America. She doesn't have the Clinton-effect behind her, so I don't think she'd beat Hillary, but I think she'd be a better leader than her.

She'll be torn to pieces are an elitist east coast Liberal, who's out of touch with the real America. She would make a great POTUS, but that's not how you win elections.

MightyMandarin

Brian? wrote: »

She'll be torn to pieces are an elitist east coast Liberal, who's out of touch with the real America. She would make a great POTUS, but that's not how you win elections.

She's from Oklahoma, she didn't grow up as a prep-school educated, silver spoon-in-mouth Liberal like Hillary. I agree that she'll be bombarded by the GOP and will probably lose, but they can't paint her as an 'east coast elitist' as she is neither of these.

Manach

On Warren, from conservative sources I've read, there are plenty of indications she is on the progressive side of the Democratic party. This wing does tend to be clustered to the NE, which perhaps is an explanation for her Senatorial success in that region.

MightyMandarin

Manach wrote: »

On Warren, from conservative sources I've read, there are plenty of indications she is on the progressive side of the Democratic party. This wing does tend to be clustered to the NE, which perhaps is an explanation for her Senatorial success in that region.

Well the Conservatives will certainly latch onto her previous job at Harvard and her seat for Massachussets in the Senate, and try to portray her as that 'type' of NE, elitist liberal. But in actuality she's nowhere near as elitist as Jeb Bush, Hillary and most other potential candidates for both parties. Moderate democrats will take her down because she's a little militant in her ways of trying to change Washington politics, and because she's not Hillary. Republicans will take her down because she's the antithesis of everything Conservative.

She's the ideal President but won't win because the best candidates always lose.

Brian?

MightyMandarin wrote: »

She's from Oklahoma, she didn't grow up as a prep-school educated, silver spoon-in-mouth Liberal like Hillary. I agree that she'll be bombarded by the GOP and will probably lose, but they can't paint her as an 'east coast elitist' as she is neither of these.

I don't think she's any of those things, but the GOP will bombard her until everyone assumes it's true. It's a tried and tested campaign tactic.

Black Swan

Brian? wrote: »

I don't think she's any of those things, but the GOP will bombard her until everyone assumes it's true. It's a tried and tested campaign tactic.

Is Elizabeth Warren being misrepresented? Repetitious misinformation has been the political standard operating procedures for the dysfunctional 2-party system (Republicans and Democrats). Just like when Rove orchestrated the smearing of John Kerry's Vietnam war record on behalf of GW Bush in 2004. Kerry was painted a coward by Republicans, ignoring his 3 Purple Hearts, Silver Star, and Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device for Valor received in combat, while heroic GW Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard defending the State of Texas from the State of Oklahoma.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Is Elizabeth Warren being misrepresented? Repetitious misinformation has been the political standard operating procedures for the dysfunctional 2-party system (Republicans and Democrats). Just like when Rove orchestrated the smearing of John Kerry's Vietnam war record on behalf of GW Bush in 2004. Kerry was painted a coward by Republicans, ignoring his 3 Purple Hearts, Silver Star, and Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device for Valor received in combat, while heroic GW Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard defending the State of Texas from the State of Oklahoma.

Didn't Kerry throw those medals away at some protest in 1971?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Didn't Kerry throw those medals away at some protest in 1971?

Why is that relevant? He won those medals in combat serving his country, doesn't he deserve respect for that? The smear campaign orchestrated by Rove was a disgrace.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Why is that relevant? He won those medals in combat serving his country, doesn't he deserve respect for that? The smear campaign orchestrated by Rove was a disgrace.

The question is germane. Did he throw the medals away?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

The question is germane. Did he throw the medals away?

I maintain the question is irrelevant and also that you clearly know the answer. So go ahead and make your point.

jank

Brian? wrote: »

I maintain the question is irrelevant and also that you clearly know the answer. So go ahead and make your point.

I think the point Amerika was making is that Kerry used his anti-war message and 'medal discarding' act as a way to start his political career when there was a very strong anti military narrative in the left only for him then 30 years later to use the fact that he won them as a political strength, hence the typical Washington politician playing to the latest audience and being a bit of a hypocrite.

Amerika

jank wrote: »

I think the point Amerika was making is that Kerry used his anti-war message and 'medal discarding' act as a way to start his political career when there was a very strong anti military narrative in the left only for him then 30 years later to use the fact that he won them as a political strength, hence the typical Washington politician playing to the latest audience and being a bit of a hypocrite.

Supposedly he still has his medals, so you can add liar to the tag of hypocrite. Rove was not the bogeyman... Just the facilitator at most. Kerry brought a lot of the condemnation over his active/post service upon himself as much of it is public record.

Black Swan

Getting back on topic...

What are the 2 parties doing to encourage and prepare women to become more active and qualified to hold public office?

MightyMandarin

Black Swan wrote: »

Getting back on topic...

What are the 2 parties doing to encourage and prepare women to become more active and qualified to hold public office?

Considering the likes of Palin and Bachmann have somewhat been representative of female candidates in the past few years, not very much.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Getting back on topic...

What are the 2 parties doing to encourage and prepare women to become more active and qualified to hold public office?

Since 2013, Republicans have focused on initiatives aimed at recruiting more female candidates, and getting more women into the party.

• “Women on the Right Unite”
• “Project GROW” (Growing Republican Opportunities for Women)
• “Right Women, Right Now”

And judging by the last election, it seems to be working rather well.

As for Democrats... The only thing I've seen is the bogus "War On Women" nonsense.

Black Swan

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Considering the likes of Palin and Bachmann have somewhat been representative of female candidates in the past few years, not very much.

Palin and Bachmann were both associated with the (Republican) Tea Party, and consequently not representative of most women voters or those seeking office.

MightyMandarin

Black Swan wrote: »

Palin and Bachmann were both associated with the (Republican) Tea Party, and consequently not representative of most women voters or those seeking office.

That's true, but ask most Americans to name a well known female politician and the answers you'd get would be those two, Hillary and probably Nancy Pelosi. So considering that's 2 not-so-good options for political office out of 4, you can see my point.

Black Swan

MightyMandarin wrote: »

That's true, but ask most Americans to name a well known female politician and the answers you'd get would be those two, Hillary and probably Nancy Pelosi. So considering that's 2 not-so-good options for political office out of 4, you can see my point.

I really don't see Hillary or Nancy as role models for women interested in political office either. They may not be as embarrassing as Palin or Bachmann, but Hillary I find boring and unimaginative, and Nancy was not a convincing or effective Speaker of the House, losing more ground for women than gaining from an image standpoint.

MightyMandarin

Black Swan wrote: »

I really don't see Hillary or Nancy as role models for women interested in political office either. They may not be as embarrassing as Palin or Bachmann, but Hillary I find boring and unimaginative, and Nancy was not a convincing or effective Speaker of the House, losing more ground for women than gaining from an image standpoint.

I'd agree with you that Hillary is boring, and Nancy was ineffective; so that makes them all non-role models for women in political office then. Perhaps the only role model for women would be (my personal favourite again) Elizabeth Warren. There's something about her that's just eye catching and makes you believe that politicians can be effective and get things done. She's in the vast minority in Washington though.

Brian?

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'd agree with you that Hillary is boring, and Nancy was ineffective; so that makes them all non-role models for women in political office then. Perhaps the only role model for women would be (my personal favourite again) Elizabeth Warren. There's something about her that's just eye catching and makes you believe that politicians can be effective and get things done. She's in the vast minority in Washington though.

Since being elected to the Senate, Warren has become a lot more polished in her public appearances. She's definitely more emotional when speaking that Hilary and more ideologically progressive. Earlier I'd dismissed her as a runner in 2016, but after watching some interviews I'm changing that opinion.

MightyMandarin

I hope she runs in 2016 though I don't think she will decide until close to the primaries because her main rival is Hillary, and Hillary's campaign is going to try and portray Warren as a more radical version of her. Warren should try and hold off, allow the Republicans to try and weaken Hillary (which will be through constant reminders of Benghazi etc.) and then try and become the dominant female candidate in the race. I think this is her best bet of securing the nomination.

What people love about Warren, myself included, is that she doesn't change her tune for anything or anyone. Even 2 weeks ago during the passing of the budget package, she was vehemently opposed to it, despite all of the top democrats supporting it. Now some republicans and fox news likened her opposition to that of Ted Cruz's last year, however the key difference was, she didn't filibuster the bill and threaten a Govt. shutdown, she just showed her opposition to it but didn't spoil it for the majority who proposed it. This is exactly what I love about her, she never pipes down if something goes against her beliefs no matter how popular it may be, yet she doesn't play dirty and filibuster stuff like Cruz and other politicians do. God how we could do with more politicians like her in this world.

Black Swan

A recent ABC News-Washington Post poll has Elizabeth Warren a distant 3rd place behind Hilliary Clinton (61 to 13 percent). Of course it's very early to poll for November 2016.