Paul Hopper
Paul Hopper [link]
03 November 2004 @ 11:05:00
2 x 4
 
 
Current Mood: crappy
 
 
( Post a new comment )
(Anonymous) on November 2nd, 2004 - 21:28:48 ET
I'm afraid to support Hillary in in '08 for fear they'll take the house for another 4.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
(Anonymous) on November 2nd, 2004 - 21:33:48 ET
I am responsible for the above post.

Kerene
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Paul Hopper [link] on November 2nd, 2004 - 21:35:28 ET
Yeah, I knew that even before I checked the ip address.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
BLACKberry [link] on November 3rd, 2004 - 10:32:54 ET
don't bother
Hillary can't win- ever
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Reyn [link] on November 4th, 2004 - 02:50:07 ET
Re: don't bother
I see no reason why Hillary couldn't take the same states that Kerry took. Sadly, I think she lacks the same charisma Kerry does to win the support of non-elite populations. Also, there's a good chance that active Republicans won't make the same mistake twice. I've met several who had no intent of permanently abandoning their party but refused to cast their vote for Bush. There's a good chance they'll run a really lame, qualified, non-charismatic candidate in '08-- in which case, Hillary would, at minimum, have a better chance at gaining the votes of common women (a Bob Dole-like character may very well turn them off... and with Hillary going strong after their vote, they'll at least have to entertain the idea of a female President).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Paul Hopper [link] on November 4th, 2004 - 03:14:38 ET
Re: don't bother
Kerry had some really close calls. There are people in both major parties with sexist attitudes who would have difficulty voting for a woman. A female at the top of a Republican ticket would lead to at least a temporary split in their party. A female at the top of a Democratic ticket would lead to decreased voter turnout.

Again, that's just the way I see things going.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Reyn [link] on November 4th, 2004 - 03:27:58 ET
Re: don't bother
Margaret Thatcher. Our conservatives aren't that much different than British conservatives. I'd have a difficult time analogizing Hillary to the first female prime minister of Canada though. Just wouldn't hold.

I actually think a female on the ticket would be both historical and landmark. It would result in huge voter turnout (be it in support or lack thereof). More difficult to do in a time of war? Yes. I will concede that.

I'm not trying to convince you one way or the other though. Hillary will run or she won't. If she ends up on the ballot, I don't think her loss would be that much different than Kerry's. Think about the populations in the coastal states... their vote is based on reason, qualifications, etc. They are ready for a female candidate (and their perspectives could be analogized to Canada-- though Hillary couldn't be analogized to their femalel prime minister).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Paul Hopper [link] on November 4th, 2004 - 12:48:28 ET
Re: don't bother
I'm not trying to convince you one way or the other though.
And I'm not trying to convince you, either. I hope you're right and I'm wrong. But, as cynical as I can be, I honestly had higher expectations of people than this election indicates they deserved.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Reyn [link] on November 4th, 2004 - 13:52:04 ET
Re: don't bother
Although I'm cynical, it's clear that we can be less weary about certain states. And it's a lot easier to believe that this country can support women in leadership positions (they're all over Congress) than it is to believe they'll come to terms with gay rights or abortion. I was just watching some Republicans on MSNBC talk about how condescending liberals are to populations who believe that life starts at conception and that marriage should be between a male and female. We are bitter and after losing the election, more likely to write them off as homophobes or anti-female as opposed to giving them credit for having values-- disagreeable values, but values nonetheless. Are they going to forget this in 4 years? Will we be able to tone it down to convince 1/50 of those who voted Republican this time to vote Democratic next time (that's what we need to win)? Sometimes I think the pro-choice and pro-gay rights activists are responsible for votes lost at the margins. Maybe these groups should be about as vocal as in the Democratic Party as log-cabin Republicans in the Republican Party. We need to compromise. e.g. I think the marriage statutes are unconstitutional. It's a little unreasonable to expect Congress to support gay rights at this point in time. It's not enough support for it. On the other hand, it's very possible that gay supporters will find remedy for disheartening legislative enactments at the judicial level. Surely, you don't think all the liberal justices will retire or die while Bush is in office. It sucks that we may not be able to replace the conservatives that leave the court this term, but an overly liberal court will only lose the already-diminished respect of the people. Let them have their Scalia and Thomases. They need voices on the court too.

Anyway, a lot of Republicans are just misguided, drowned in misinformation. e.g. A conservative relative of mine (won't say which), seemed to be voting solely on the fact that some states performed partial birth abortions at 9 months. Although partial birth abortions can be performed after 24 weeks, if it isn't to protect the mother's health (which it is in 99% of the cases), it's illegal under both Roe v. Wade and Casey. He or she was just unaware of the details... thinks Kerry would repeal the partial birth abortion ban. It's ridiculous. It seems like there should be more compromise on both sides. They should accept civil unions (already a step down from marriage), we should not get unnecessarily upset about reasonable limitations on abortion rights. I'm all about toning down the rhetoric. I think it promotes football mentality; we'll only lose votes from people with uninformed interpretations of what it means to be pro-choice or what it means support gay rights. If they're not going to critically assess their stance (which most won't), we have to tone it down. Our catch-phrases must represent issues that people can unify on.

Unfortunately, this might repress the already ineffective youth vote.

I write too much.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Paul Hopper [link] on November 3rd, 2004 - 20:35:33 ET
I'm afraid we still have a while before any woman can be elected President.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Reyn [link] on November 4th, 2004 - 02:37:48 ET
I disagree. I think a republican female could reasonably win an election in this country. Unfortunately, I don't think the republicans would run a female.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Paul Hopper [link] on November 4th, 2004 - 03:03:44 ET
Republicans would instantly lose a significant chunk of their base if they nominated a female candidate for President and I don't think they'd completely make up for that with moderate voters just because their candidate was female. They'd have to adopt a more moderate platform as well. But if you combined a female Presidential candidate with a more moderate platform, I think a conservative third party would gain enough ground to get attention and steal even more votes from the Republican party. The Democrats would run a male candidate and they'd pick up those moderates who can't quite bring themselves to vote for a woman. The Democrats would then win, without a majority of all votes, but still more than the other candidates.

That's just the way I see something like that happening.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Reyn [link] on November 4th, 2004 - 03:17:27 ET
Margaret Thatcher.

Any Margaret Thatcher-like female conservative could successfully win the support of her party. IMO I think you overestimate the level of sexism in this society. Very few would vote solely on a person's sex. If she has the same values and the same qualifications, she could keep the states that W has.

I think democrats should take a hit for the cause and run a female candidate as well. And don't think that the inner party female democrats wouldn't push for it. If those who made the decisions in our party were strictly male strategists, I would agree with you. Fortunately, that isn't the case. It's not just men making the decisions anymore.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Paul Hopper [link] on November 4th, 2004 - 12:53:34 ET
Well, even if Democrats should take a hit for the cause and run a female candidate, I'm not sure Hillary should be that candidate. She has time, though, to convince me otherwise.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Brandi [link] on November 2nd, 2004 - 22:40:14 ET
Blah.
I'm not at work. I'm at home, cleaning everything in sight. BOOO!
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
Paul Hopper [link] on November 2nd, 2004 - 22:45:22 ET
Re: Blah.
Sorry I left such a mess. I'm at work, but got in really late and haven't been able to be very productive since I got here.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Brandi [link] on November 2nd, 2004 - 22:47:18 ET
Re: Blah.
No problem. It was late. Besides, it helps me feel better anyway.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Paul Hopper [link] on November 2nd, 2004 - 22:48:47 ET
Re: Blah.
Oh, in that case... :)

*sigh*

It's so hard to smile right now. :(
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Brandi [link] on November 2nd, 2004 - 22:55:06 ET
Re: Blah.
I have never in my life been this depressed about an election.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)