Octopus Overlords

Kraken wrote:A factor I forgot to mention before: As the first female president, Clinton might feel undue pressure to act macho.

Kraken wrote:She talks tough. When she takes command, I believe her gender will cause her extra pressure to act tough. Of course that's not quantifiable and just my hunch.

Kraken wrote:She talks tough. When she takes command, I believe her gender will cause her extra pressure to act tough. Of course that's not quantifiable and just my hunch.

Kraken wrote:She talks tough. When she takes command, I believe her gender will cause her extra pressure to act tough. Of course that's not quantifiable and just my hunch.

Max Peck wrote:If he wants maximum exposure, I'd guess that he will just go ahead and put it on Youtube rather than something like Netflix that is behind a paywall.

Max Peck wrote:

Kraken wrote:She talks tough. When she takes command, I believe her gender will cause her extra pressure to act tough. Of course that's not quantifiable and just my hunch.

And that does not in any way sound literally sexist.

Kraken wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

Kraken wrote:She talks tough. When she takes command, I believe her gender will cause her extra pressure to act tough. Of course that's not quantifiable and just my hunch.

And that does not in any way sound literally sexist.

I suppose it does.

Every president wants to be remembered as a strong leader. The first woman in the job might feel like she's starting with certain cultural presumptions to overcome. Will that affect HRC's decision making? I don't know; she's undeniably a tough woman anyway. I can't say that it will any more than you can say that it won't...but it's going to be there regardless.

The election of Hillary Clinton is an event that we would welcome for its historical importance, and greet with indescribable relief.

On November 8th, barring some astonishment, the people of the United States will, after two hundred and forty years, send a woman to the White House. The election of Hillary Clinton is an event that we will welcome for its immense historical importance, and greet with indescribable relief. It will be especially gratifying to have a woman as commander-in-chief after such a sickeningly sexist and racist campaign, one that exposed so starkly how far our society has to go. The vileness of her opponent’s rhetoric and his record has been so widely aired that we can only hope she will be able to use her office and her impressive resolve to battle prejudice wherever it may be found.

On every issue of consequence, including economic policy, the environment, and foreign affairs, Hillary Clinton is a distinctly capable candidate: experienced, serious, schooled, resilient. When the race began, Clinton, who has always been a better office-holder than a campaigner, might have anticipated a clash of ideas and personalities on the conventional scale, against, say, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Instead, the Democratic nominee has ended up playing a sometimes secondary role in a squalid American epic. If she is elected, she will have weathered a prolonged battle against a trash-talking, burn-it-to-the-ground demagogue. Unfortunately, the drama is not likely to end soon. The aftereffects of this campaign may befoul our civic life for some time to come.

em2nought wrote:Maybe the membership of the Nobel committee should be "classified", just in case they "don't" give her the Peace Prize.

Defiant wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Congrats. You're the first person to use that word on the boards.

Max Peck wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Congrats. You're the first person to use that word on the boards.

He's the second, actually, but apparently the first in the trendy alt-right sense.

Max Peck wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Congrats. You're the first person to use that word on the boards.

He's the second, actually, but apparently the first in the trendy alt-right sense.

Isgrimnur wrote:Congrats. You're the first person to use that word on the boards.

Right now, 56 percent of Clinton voters say they are mainly for her compared to just 42 percent of the same voters who say they are voting against Trump. This 56 percent is the highest it’s been all year in the ABC News poll, and it’s been steadily climbing for Clinton since July. In the same survey, only 41 percent of Trump supporters say they are voting for him, while 54 percent say they are mostly voting against Clinton. Those numbers are about the same as they’ve been all year.

That 56 percent of Clinton’s voters are affirmatively supporting her may not seem like a lot, but it’s about average for a presidential candidate.

The most interesting thing about these numbers is how few of Trump’s supporters are his fans. No candidate since 1980 has had a lower percentage of voters say they plan to cast a vote for their candidate. That includes candidates whose campaigns were viewed as disastrous, including Jimmy Carter in 1980, Michael Dukakis in 1988 and Bob Dole in 1996.

Isgrimnur wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Congrats. You're the first person to use that word on the boards.

He's the second, actually, but apparently the first in the trendy alt-right sense.

That's the misspelling of a proper name. I didn't count it for a reason.

Defiant wrote:By the same token, couldn't it just mean that people just don't hate Trump, since fewer people are voting "against" him, while they do hate Clinton?

...

OK, I'll admit I had to stifle a chuckle to say that, so never mind.

In the same survey, only 41 percent of Trump supporters say they are voting for him, while 54 percent say they are mostly voting against Clinton.