Hillary is now blaming the married women

[Jolly_Penguin]

Lol @ the "height percent"

I'm not a fan of Jimmy Dore, but he's hitting the nail on the head here.

 

[Derec]

So their solution is to go with somebody like McDidntGovern to appease the left fringe that votes for the Green Party?
Greens screwed Democrats twice already in the last 20 years - in 2000 and 2016, although 2016 was less dramatic but it did draw away support in key Midwestern States.

Oh, and Jill Stein is totally connected to Putin.

 

[Juma]

Voter shaming? Of course! Its the voters that vote! Why shouldnt you blame them? Or do you mean that voters actually have no responsibility for their actions?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Voter shaming? Of course! Its the voters that vote! Why shouldnt you blame them? Or do you mean that voters actually have no responsibility for their actions?

The op author and supporters don't care if Hillary is right or not, just want to bomp her on the head for their perception she is not being pragmatic. I guess they didn't get enough pragmatism and triangulation from the Clintons in the 90's and now they want another round. Or maybe they want someone more fascistically aggressive than Trump. You know, a real "winner."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

To elaborate further. If winning more important than truth, then this is what you get:

Lamb, for all his fresh-faced charm, ran and won as a Trump Democrat – a flashback to the "Republican Lite" candidacies the Democrats specialized in during the Clinton '90s and '00s. He was so reluctant to criticize the president that NBC reporter Kacie Hunt made it her mission on Tuesday to ask him about Trump and try to extract something. Lamb wouldn't rise to the bait...

"Just try getting this guy to say anything critical of Trump," Hunt marveled on MSNBC. An equally mystified Guardian reporter noted, accurately, that "Lamb has been almost painfully non-controversial." In a rally over the weekend in a rural corner of the district, the president of the United Mine Workers, Cecil Roberts, summed up the reasons why white people were about to vote for a Democrat here, hailing Lamb as "a God-fearing, union-supporting, gun-owning, job-protecting, pension-defending, Social Security-believing, sending-drug-dealers-to-jail Democrat."

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...hould-worry-about-conor-lambs-victory-w517866

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To elaborate further. If winning more important than truth, then this is what you get:

Lamb, for all his fresh-faced charm, ran and won as a Trump Democrat – a flashback to the "Republican Lite" candidacies the Democrats specialized in during the Clinton '90s and '00s. He was so reluctant to criticize the president that NBC reporter Kacie Hunt made it her mission on Tuesday to ask him about Trump and try to extract something. Lamb wouldn't rise to the bait...

"Just try getting this guy to say anything critical of Trump," Hunt marveled on MSNBC. An equally mystified Guardian reporter noted, accurately, that "Lamb has been almost painfully non-controversial." In a rally over the weekend in a rural corner of the district, the president of the United Mine Workers, Cecil Roberts, summed up the reasons why white people were about to vote for a Democrat here, hailing Lamb as "a God-fearing, union-supporting, gun-owning, job-protecting, pension-defending, Social Security-believing, sending-drug-dealers-to-jail Democrat."

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...hould-worry-about-conor-lambs-victory-w517866

He ran as a conservative Democrat. Yeah, that is what gets elected in these parts, at best, for the blue party. He hasn't sounded much different that Sen. Sherrod Brown in Ohio.

And let's get something straight, Trump ran a campaign on a lot of anger and bigotry. Lamb didn't mock people in his campaign. Lamb didn't run a campaign as a bully. He wasn't a "Trump Democrat".

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Even when she’s right, she’s vilified. Meanwhile, when a man says much the same thing, no one bats an eye, so to speak.

“It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to where I came from." - Bernie Sanders, November 2016

"It is clear that there is an element of Trump supporters who are racists, sexists, homophobes, and there’s nothing I’m going to say that’s going to appeal to them," - Bernie Sanders, Dec. 2017

And, of course, Hillary is not wrong. For example, 1 in 10 Bernie Sanders Supporters Ended Up Voting For Trump. The primary reasons? Race and sexism. Not only were the majority of the defectors “not fans of Obama’s”:

Nearly half of Sanders-Trump voters disagree with the idea that "white people have advantages." This tracks with broader observations about election 2016 — for example, as I wrote last week, in general, the larger a state's general-election Trump vote, the less likely its residents are to perceive a lot of discrimination in the world, according to data from the Public Religion Research Institute. And another postelection study — co-authored by Schaffner — found a "relatively strong indication that racism and sexism were more important in 2016 than they had been in previous elections."

And a deeper dive: Why Hillary Clinton Was Right About White Women - And Their Husbands as well as this piece The Reasons Why White Women Vote Republican - And What To Do About It. From the latter:

To understand the “white woman story,” we must first acknowledge that white supremacy remains the prevailing force in electoral politics—that, as Melissa Harris-Perry noted, “there is a race [voting] gap of enormous proportions and a gender gap of very slim margins in this country…. gender politics is a secondary game, not the main show.” Data consistently support this statement; the race gap between black and white voters in modern elections runs 40–50+ points, whereas the gender gap runs about 10. That said, white women are not a monolithic voting bloc, and their voting behavior is highly related to the interplay of several factors: heterosexual marriage, education, and religion. There was a 20-point gap in support for Hillary Clinton between college-educated (56 percent) and non-college-educated (36 percent) white women in 2016. But there was also significant within-group variation, with support for Clinton 10+ points higher among unmarried women than married women and roughly 30 points higher among non-evangelicals than evangelical Christians across all educational levels.

Such associations are significant because they reveal how systemic influences like marriage and evangelical Christianity interact with white supremacy to influence white women’s political behavior, through the explicit ideologies they propagate and the more insidious ways they reflect and perpetuate other structural inequalities. Some white women face voting pressure from their more-conservative husbands, a dynamic Hillary Clinton acknowledged in her analysis of her 2016 election loss.

And from the former (note too that this was not the first time Hillary has made such comments, so why this is at all a shock to anyone is beyond me):

Last week, Clinton, who has had a lifetime to contemplate the women’s vote, copped to having a theory. “[Women] will be under tremendous pressure – and I’m talking principally about white women. They will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl’,” she said in an interview as part of a tour promoting her new memoir of the 2016 campaign.

People might scoff at the idea that women vote based on what husbands and fathers tell them to do. And tens of millions of dollars in political messaging has been spent based on the assumption that women will vote collectively on equal pay, abortion, and other salient issues regarding women’s autonomy.

But social science backs up Clinton’s anecdotal hunch. “We think she was right in her analysis about women getting pressure from men in their lives, specifically [straight] white women,” said Kelsy Kretschmer, an assistant professor at Oregon State University and a co-author of a recent study examining women’s voting patterns.

“We know white men are more conservative, so when you’re married to a white man you get a lot more pressure to vote consistent with that ideology.”

 

[braces_for_impact]

So what is it that people are exactly finding controversial here? Is it the contention that a lot of women may have different political ideas than their husbands, but then because of various types of pressure (political, religious, social) may end up voting as their husbands? Is that controversial somehow? I should think it obvious. Any politician worth the name should recognize various impediments to getting them elected and confront or at least acknowledge them. Is that controversial?

 

[thebeave]

So what is it that people are exactly finding controversial here? Is it the contention that a lot of women may have different political ideas than their husbands, but then because of various types of pressure (political, religious, social) may end up voting as their husbands? Is that controversial somehow? I should think it obvious. Any politician worth the name should recognize various impediments to getting them elected and confront or at least acknowledge them. Is that controversial?

Last I heard, voting booths were private. No one, including your husband or boss, is looking over your shoulder to see what button you push or lever you pull. Even if you're being pressured at home or work to vote a certain way, why can't you do what the fuck you want in the voting booth?

 

[braces_for_impact]

So what is it that people are exactly finding controversial here? Is it the contention that a lot of women may have different political ideas than their husbands, but then because of various types of pressure (political, religious, social) may end up voting as their husbands? Is that controversial somehow? I should think it obvious. Any politician worth the name should recognize various impediments to getting them elected and confront or at least acknowledge them. Is that controversial?

Last I heard, voting booths were private. No one, including your husband or boss, is looking over your shoulder to see what button you push or lever you pull. Even if you're being pressured at home or work to vote a certain way, why can't you do what the fuck you want in the voting booth?

That seems to be a naive and simplistic view of human nature and psychology for a variety of reasons. So much so in fact, I currently don't find myself with the time or energy I would have to go through to explain just how off the mark that is. Let me just drop this here...in any private poll or questionnaire there is a built-in margin of error taking into account those who would not tell the truth, even on a poll or survey that is private. Why do you think that is?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Last I heard, voting booths were private. No one, including your husband or boss, is looking over your shoulder to see what button you push or lever you pull. Even if you're being pressured at home or work to vote a certain way, why can't you do what the fuck you want in the voting booth?

Because Hillary thinks these women are weak and lack agency for their actions and are controlled by their husbands. And she thinks that is such a potent force that it is more important than her own obvious failings as a candidate completely aside from gender issues.

 

[ZiprHead]

Last I heard, voting booths were private. No one, including your husband or boss, is looking over your shoulder to see what button you push or lever you pull. Even if you're being pressured at home or work to vote a certain way, why can't you do what the fuck you want in the voting booth?

Because Hillary thinks these women are weak and lack agency for their actions and are controlled by their husbands. And she thinks that is such a potent force that it is more important than her own obvious failings as a candidate completely aside from gender issues.

There were many women on the right during the last election saying that women shouldn't have the right to vote.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Right-wing authoritarians and religious conservatives do not pressure women ever? It never happens at all?

One lecture in the Vision Forum study course on which Moore worked is given by William O. Einwechter, a teaching elder at Immanuel Free Reformed Church. The lecture is titled “What the Bible Says About Female Magistrates.” The lesson argues that the Bible forbids women from holding elected office.

An unidentified man introduces Einwechter’s lesson and criticizes the women’s suffrage movement.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/r...ed-that-women-shouldnt-hold-political-office/

 

[laughing dog]

Last I heard, voting booths were private. No one, including your husband or boss, is looking over your shoulder to see what button you push or lever you pull. Even if you're being pressured at home or work to vote a certain way, why can't you do what the fuck you want in the voting booth?

Because Hillary thinks these women are weak and lack agency for their actions and are controlled by their husbands.

That is not what she said. She said she thought they wanted to please the man (or men) in their life. That is not lacking agency. I am sure there are women like that. I am sure there are men who fit that description. Do I think her explanation is accurate - no.

 

[thebeave]

Last I heard, voting booths were private. No one, including your husband or boss, is looking over your shoulder to see what button you push or lever you pull. Even if you're being pressured at home or work to vote a certain way, why can't you do what the fuck you want in the voting booth?

Because Hillary thinks these women are weak and lack agency for their actions and are controlled by their husbands. And she thinks that is such a potent force that it is more important than her own obvious failings as a candidate completely aside from gender issues.

Hillary has also said "The future is female". Combine that with her implicit admission that women are weak minded and lack agency, and we are in for a rough ride in this country!

 

[LordKiran]

Last I heard, voting booths were private. No one, including your husband or boss, is looking over your shoulder to see what button you push or lever you pull. Even if you're being pressured at home or work to vote a certain way, why can't you do what the fuck you want in the voting booth?

Because Hillary thinks these women are weak and lack agency for their actions and are controlled by their husbands.

That is not what she said. She said she thought they wanted to please the man (or men) in their life. That is not lacking agency. I am sure there are women like that. I am sure there are men who fit that description. Do I think her explanation is accurate - no.

Here's a better question. Why is she even still talking? Does she think it helps anyone else?

 

[Bloodnf]

That is not what she said. She said she thought they wanted to please the man (or men) in their life. That is not lacking agency. I am sure there are women like that. I am sure there are men who fit that description. Do I think her explanation is accurate - no.

Here's a better question. Why is she even still talking? Does she think it helps anyone else?

Why shouldn't she talk? People want to hear what she has to say. They want to understand how this country could elect an obvious unqualified liar as President.

 

[LordKiran]

That is not what she said. She said she thought they wanted to please the man (or men) in their life. That is not lacking agency. I am sure there are women like that. I am sure there are men who fit that description. Do I think her explanation is accurate - no.

Here's a better question. Why is she even still talking? Does she think it helps anyone else?

Why shouldn't she talk? People want to hear what she has to say. They want to understand how this country could elect an obvious unqualified liar as President.

Because all she does is sound petty and unwilling to take accountability. Every time she makes a public statement it always seems to be related to her bid for the presidency. Like lady the election was over a year ago. It happened. How is she not over this yet?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Why shouldn't she talk? People want to hear what she has to say. They want to understand how this country could elect an obvious unqualified liar as President.

Because all she does is sound petty and unwilling to take accountability. Every time she makes a public statement it always seems to be related to her bid for the presidency. Like lady the election was over a year ago. It happened. How is she not over this yet?

Many of us aren't "over this yet" because its effects are still being felt. For me, not so much that she lost, but that Trump won. There is the Russian investigation and the fallout from this election. It's still all very topical. She was involved from the inside and she may just have a different perspective on what happened. I notice that people love to accuse her of having no accountability and attempting to explain away her loss. Personally, I don't see it that way. It seems pretty obvious there are multiple reasons for her loss, some of which were direct results of decisions she's made. Some of which she's admitted to...like her "deplorables" remark. However, her loss was under remarkable circumstances. Politicians have lost elections before, but not under the cloud of these types of events, so of course, that is mostly what she's going to be asked about. I'm not even a Hillary fan. I've never voted for her until this last election, and in truth, I would have voted for whomever Trumps opponent was, probably. I just find it interesting that people are always putting words into her mouth or assigning her motives...and most of them have to do with shutting her up.

 

[Elixir]

Who cares what Hillary thinks?
I wanna know what Stormy Daniels thinks!