Idiocracy

[bustaheims]

I have to disagree with you on that. Hillary has been in and around politics for 30 years,the voters know what they are getting with her.
If you believe that voters still don't know whether they are going to vote for her yet...what are they waiting for?

People don't know what she'd be like as President, they don't necessarily know what her platform is, they don't know a lot of things pertaining to this election. Sure, she's been in and around politics for 30 years, but a lot of that was as the wife of a governor/president - which isn't going to provide a whole lot of information on how she'd govern herself - and a significant part of the rest was confined to the State of NY - which means the majority of the nation would not have the benefit of that direct experience. A lot of voters are smart enough and/or open minded enough to recognize that know a lot about Hillary Clinton as a political figure, but they don't really know a whole lot about Hillary Clinton as a politician.

 

[herman]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8syBrqA1r8[/youtube]

I get that the mainstream media needs the candidates to be on largely equal-seeming footing to ensure 'balanced' coverage, but it's pretty ridiculous how any one of Trumps gaffes would've normally tanked a candidate immediately, whereas even 75% of Hillary's qualifications would have vaulted a male candidate into shoo-in status.

The bar is set exceedingly high for Hillary, while Trump just has to act civil to be considered successful (which he has failed repeatedly).

 

[mr grieves]

I get that the mainstream media needs the candidates to be on largely equal-seeming footing to ensure 'balanced' coverage, but it's pretty ridiculous how any one of Trumps gaffes would've normally tanked a candidate immediately, whereas even 75% of Hillary's qualifications would have vaulted a male candidate into shoo-in status.

The bar is set exceedingly high for Hillary, while Trump just has to act civil to be considered successful (which he has failed repeatedly).

I get and mostly agree with the Trump point -- though gaffe is hardly a word sufficient to describe what comes out of his mouth, but gaffe normalizes him as a politician in a way that doesn't sound quite right to me...

As for Clinton, she's certainly qualified, but the last non-incumbent president who won on "qualified" was, I think, Nixon (?) -- and that should pretty clearly indicate how overrated "qualified" can be. I sort of suspect the reluctance of people to come around to her because she is qualified -- the only plausible president in the race -- and has all sorts of structural factors making her election the more likely outcome. Folks are more likely to carefully scrutinize their future president than the sideshow.

 

[Kin]

As for Clinton, she's certainly qualified, but the last non-incumbent president who won on "qualified" was, I think, Nixon (?) -- and that should pretty clearly indicate how overrated "qualified" can be. I sort of suspect the reluctance of people to come around to her because she is qualified -- the only plausible president in the race -- and has all sorts of structural factors making her election the more likely outcome. Folks are more likely to carefully scrutinize their future president than the sideshow.

I guess that sort of depends on what you mean. Do you mean Nixon won because he was noticeably more qualified than Humphrey? Or that it was a major element of his campaign? Because Nixon's opponent in '68 was one of the most "qualified" candidates ever. Humphrey had been mayor of Minneapolis, a 3 term US Senator and was the sitting Vice-President. It seems to me that Nixon didn't win because of his qualifications(which were basically the same as Humphrey's) but just because the guy who was most likely to be his opponent, RFK, was murdered. Humphrey was effectively a back-up choice.

It also raises the question of what qualifies someone to be President. Is legislative experience more important than executive experience? And does experience matter? Most people agree Eisenhower was a pretty good President despite never having held any political office prior to the Presidency. The description "the son of a political dynasty without much experience in office and mainly riding to office on the strength of the family's political machine" could apply just as well to George W. Bush as John F. Kennedy.

As for a non-incumbent winning on "experience" I think you could go to '88 where George H.W. Bush may have had the most and broadest range of government experience for any President since Thomas Jefferson. He had executive experience(VP for 8 years), legislative experience(2 terms in Congress) and Foreign Policy experience(Ambassador to UN, Director of CIA). Despite that...he isn't seen as a terribly effective President. On the other hand you have Lincoln, a one term congressman who is maybe the pinnacle of the office.

So I tend to reject the idea that Hillary's "experience" would look incredible on a man or it should really catapult her anywhere. She's a smart person and seems capable enough and in this election that should do it but the question of experience as a deciding factor is a difficult one to invest heavily in.

 

[mr grieves]

As for Clinton, she's certainly qualified, but the last non-incumbent president who won on "qualified" was, I think, Nixon (?) -- and that should pretty clearly indicate how overrated "qualified" can be. I sort of suspect the reluctance of people to come around to her because she is qualified -- the only plausible president in the race -- and has all sorts of structural factors making her election the more likely outcome. Folks are more likely to carefully scrutinize their future president than the sideshow.

I guess that sort of depends on what you mean. Do you mean Nixon won because he was noticeably more qualified than Humphrey?

No, meant what you go on to say, at least with respect to GHWB. Perhaps herman wasn't viewing HRC's experience as an inherent virtue, but a lot of liberals down here do. 30 years in public service, has scars, etc. I think it's as likely to make her a bad (or very mediocre) president as a good one. Experience can teach you how to work within the system; it can also shape your beliefs about what a system can and ought to do. Ultimately decisive will be not her qualifications, but what she believes and plans to do.

The other thing, along these lines, worth pointing out about herman's post: I suspect HRC's gender also works in her favor on the experience issue. Her 30 years of public service, gathered as a woman and in the face of some pretty nasty, sexist attacks, gives her record a sort of heroic hue that occludes much of what she's actually done. Lots of folks on the left hold her in higher esteem than they would a male politician who's had similar experiences.

 

[Kin]

No, meant what you go on to say, at least with respect to GHWB. Perhaps herman wasn't viewing HRC's experience as an inherent virtue, but a lot of liberals down here do. 30 years in public service, has scars, etc. I think it's as likely to make her a bad (or very mediocre) president as a good one. Experience can teach you how to work within the system; it can also shape your beliefs about what a system can and ought to do. Ultimately decisive will be not her qualifications, but what she believes and plans to do.

Maybe but I generally tend to think that most people would agree that while "experience" is not a cumulative thing where more necessarily equals better, I do think most people would agree that some sort of experience with the ins and outs of the political system are pretty worthwhile. Or even just relevant experience for the job. To go back to Eisenhower, sure, he didn't hold political office before the presidency but he had been in charge of the single most largest and complex military operation the world had ever seen by that point(or even now). You have to assume that some elements of overseeing the invasion of Europe were then relevant to running the country. One of my favourite quotes, for instance, is Eisenhower saying "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity". Eisenhower went on to have some pretty questionable foreign policy decisions but reckless use of the military wasn't one.

That to me is where Trump really falls short. He doesn't seem to understand the military and suggests NATO ought to be run as some sort of protection racket. He seems to think that international trade deals can be negotiated the way you would with an Atlantic City concrete supplier. I don't know that anything he's done gives him any actual sense of how a government is run and I think in general most people would agree that at least some of that knowledge is required.

The other thing, along these lines, worth pointing out about herman's post: I suspect HRC's gender also works in her favor on the experience issue. Her 30 years of public service, gathered as a woman and in the face of some pretty nasty, sexist attacks, gives her record a sort of heroic hue that occludes much of what she's actually done. Lots of folks on the left hold her in higher esteem than they would a male politician who's had similar experiences.

This I don't agree with. I think her experience is what works in her favor on the experience issue. I think her gender has probably worked against her on what's really hurting her which is the issues of likability and trust.

I mean, we talk about her 30 years of experience but let's be real. She's got 8 years as a Senator and 4 as Secretary of State. Beyond that her "experience" is as First Lady and while she was arguably more involved in policy as First Lady than most are, she's still being held accountable for decisions her husband made in office(and perhaps more fairly, her actions and language in supporting).

I mean look at all of the talk post-debate about how Trump is patting himself on the back for not bringing up her husband's affairs and impeachment. Trump, on his third marriage and having cheated on his own wives, thinks he's got the upper hand on the marital fidelity issue because of something Bill Clinton did. I don't think a male candidate would ever be on the receiving end of that and we largely know that to be true. People somehow aren't holding Trump's(or Gingrich's or Giuliani's) crummy behaviour as husbands against them but there are people out there who think something that was done to her is a negative.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Man, for a guy who's been in the casino business, Trump sure doesn't know when to double down.

 

[hockeyfan1]

No, meant what you go on to say, at least with respect to GHWB. Perhaps herman wasn't viewing HRC's experience as an inherent virtue, but a lot of liberals down here do. 30 years in public service, has scars, etc. I think it's as likely to make her a bad (or very mediocre) president as a good one. Experience can teach you how to work within the system; it can also shape your beliefs about what a system can and ought to do. Ultimately decisive will be not her qualifications, but what she believes and plans to do.

That to me is where Trump really falls short. He doesn't seem to understand the military and suggests NATO ought to be run as some sort of protection racket. He seems to think that international trade deals can be negotiated the way you would with an Atlantic City concrete supplier. I don't know that anything he's done gives him any actual sense of how a government is run and I think in general most people would agree that at least some of that knowledge is required.

I see that as Trump's caveat, his flaw, the lack of apparent understanding of a 'complicated and sensitive' issue on the subject of foreign policy.

Watching the first presidential debate the other night, Clinton provided a more proper counterpoint to Trump's answer on foreign policy, with a far greater knowledge of understanding in a prudent & straight forward manner.  While not necessarily perfect, it spoke spades over, and compared to, Trump's shallow explanation.

 

[herman]

mr. grieves, I still haven't figured out what you're saying I was trying to say. 

 

[herman]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yh0jAxOxGE[/youtube]

Should I laugh or cry? Tell me what to do, Internet.

 

[mr grieves]

mr. grieves, I still haven't figured out what you're saying I was trying to say. 

mr. grieves, I still haven't figured out what you're saying I was trying to say. 

Well, I know you said that Clinton's experience should ensure her the presidency, and that it doesn't have her up by 40 points has to do with her gender. I don't think experience has very much to do with how elections work in general, and I'm especially doubtful that that's how they work in this era. I don't think her gender enters into her experience not counting for more.

I don't think you were saying -- but think what you wrote can be read to suggest -- that you think Clinton's experience is something that ensures she'll be a good president. If you don't think this, apologies. But some down here do think that, so I took it as an opportunity to dispute it. Clinton's experience is as likely to make her a good president (able to navigate the structures of government) as a bad one (internalized the limitations of modern American politics).

 

[herman]

Ah okay. All I was saying was that Clinton, for all her flaws, is being judged far more stringently than candidates of the past (e.g. a lot of other politicians have used private email servers). And the reason for that is basically because she's a woman. They judge her voice, her laugh, her facial expressions, her clothing, etc.

The Donald, on the other hand, has the media stepping in to help either add step-stools for him to climb a hurdle, or they remove the bar altogether and applaud that he didn't blurt out too-overt a racist/sexist remark as he saunters to the podium.

Would Hillary be a good president? I can't say for sure, but she sure seems measured, tactful, politically-savvy and tough enough to deal with the old boys club of politics. She also seems to be trying to make changes for the betterment of the people of the country (and the world), even to the detriment of her own family's income. She can't pull off a joke to save a life but that's not a job requirement (and Obama has spoiled us).

Would Trump be a good president? No.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/WorldofIsaac/status/783353969888329728

So when is she running? Pretty please?

 

[Bates]

Is that the same Michelle that said Hillary can't run her own house never mind the White House last election cycle.  The US doesn't need Trump, Hillary, or another Obama. 

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

[tweet]783443559798013952[/tweet]

 

[mr grieves]

Would Hillary be a good president? I can't say for sure, but she sure seems measured, tactful, politically-savvy and tough enough to deal with the old boys club of politics. She also seems to be trying to make changes for the betterment of the people of the country (and the world), even to the detriment of her own family's income. She can't pull off a joke to save a life but that's not a job requirement (and Obama has spoiled us).

Cult of personality, even in the caveats (how lucky we've been to be spoiled by a charismatic neoliberal!) and the follow up (Michelle Obama gives good speeches, yes). The problem with politics isn't that it's an "old boys club" but that it's responsive to the needs of ~10% of the population and can't address the negative effects of globalization and technological advances.

 

[herman]

Would Hillary be a good president? I can't say for sure, but she sure seems measured, tactful, politically-savvy and tough enough to deal with the old boys club of politics. She also seems to be trying to make changes for the betterment of the people of the country (and the world), even to the detriment of her own family's income. She can't pull off a joke to save a life but that's not a job requirement (and Obama has spoiled us).

Cult of personality, even in the caveats (how lucky we've been to be spoiled by a charismatic neoliberal!) and the follow up (Michelle Obama gives good speeches, yes). The problem with politics isn't that it's an "old boys club" but that it's responsive to the needs of ~10% of the population and can't address the negative effects of globalization and technological advances.

Thank you for outlining exactly why old boys clubs are the worst.

 

[mr grieves]

Would Hillary be a good president? I can't say for sure, but she sure seems measured, tactful, politically-savvy and tough enough to deal with the old boys club of politics. She also seems to be trying to make changes for the betterment of the people of the country (and the world), even to the detriment of her own family's income. She can't pull off a joke to save a life but that's not a job requirement (and Obama has spoiled us).

Cult of personality, even in the caveats (how lucky we've been to be spoiled by a charismatic neoliberal!) and the follow up (Michelle Obama gives good speeches, yes). The problem with politics isn't that it's an "old boys club" but that it's responsive to the needs of ~10% of the population and can't address the negative effects of globalization and technological advances.

Thank you for outlining exactly why old boys clubs are the worst.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

 

[herman]

Would Hillary be a good president? I can't say for sure, but she sure seems measured, tactful, politically-savvy and tough enough to deal with the old boys club of politics. She also seems to be trying to make changes for the betterment of the people of the country (and the world), even to the detriment of her own family's income. She can't pull off a joke to save a life but that's not a job requirement (and Obama has spoiled us).

Cult of personality, even in the caveats (how lucky we've been to be spoiled by a charismatic neoliberal!) and the follow up (Michelle Obama gives good speeches, yes). The problem with politics isn't that it's an "old boys club" but that it's responsive to the needs of ~10% of the population and can't address the negative effects of globalization and technological advances.

Thank you for outlining exactly why old boys clubs are the worst.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Old boys clubs pander to their own needs, and can't handle change. I don't think we were saying different things.

 

[mr grieves]

Would Hillary be a good president? I can't say for sure, but she sure seems measured, tactful, politically-savvy and tough enough to deal with the old boys club of politics. She also seems to be trying to make changes for the betterment of the people of the country (and the world), even to the detriment of her own family's income. She can't pull off a joke to save a life but that's not a job requirement (and Obama has spoiled us).

Cult of personality, even in the caveats (how lucky we've been to be spoiled by a charismatic neoliberal!) and the follow up (Michelle Obama gives good speeches, yes). The problem with politics isn't that it's an "old boys club" but that it's responsive to the needs of ~10% of the population and can't address the negative effects of globalization and technological advances.

Thank you for outlining exactly why old boys clubs are the worst.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Old boys clubs pander to their own needs, and can't handle change. I don't think we were saying different things.

To the extent that you don't think Obama and Hillary are in the club, we are saying different things. There is plenty of room in it for not-old not-boys, provided the change the new entrants offer is purely symbolic, merely ceiling shattering.