RIP Fritz Hollings

[Big Abraham]

Wasn’t there a poster on here once a long time ago, called „Fritz Hollings - the cat“ ?

I remember him. He also had a picture of Fritz Mondale in his signature.

[freepcrusher]

what I find interesting is how a state that had a GOP senator for his whole tenure usually saw him winning easily. Like in 1980 where you had a twelve seat loss - he won by a 70-30 margin. I assume Strom agreed to support him in those races.

People used to think about their representatives in local terms rather than nationalized ideological ones.

The relevant question back then was: Is this person an effective advocate for my state?

There were plenty of people who saw no contradiction in voting for Fritz Hollings one year and Strom Thurmond the next.

there's a weird paradox going on in the south and I wonder if any of you guys have noticed this. As some of the southern states have become more winnable at the presidential level - the ability to win statewide has also gone down. Like I think next door Georgia could probably elect dems if they were running Hollings type democrats - but the problem is that the state has enough democrats that ideological taqiyya isn't necessary. It's a kind of catch 22.

What (English) word did you mean to use here? 

taqiyya simply means concealing something for a greater goal down the road. So if you're a democrat in a conservative area - it means hiding your views and voting your district so as to get elected and only revealing what you believe after you've entrenched yourself.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Wasn’t there a poster on here once a long time ago, called „Fritz Hollings - the cat“ ?

I remember him. He also had a picture of Fritz Mondale in his signature.

I also remember that sig distinctly.

[Blair]

what I find interesting is how a state that had a GOP senator for his whole tenure usually saw him winning easily. Like in 1980 where you had a twelve seat loss - he won by a 70-30 margin. I assume Strom agreed to support him in those races.

People used to think about their representatives in local terms rather than nationalized ideological ones.

The relevant question back then was: Is this person an effective advocate for my state?

There were plenty of people who saw no contradiction in voting for Fritz Hollings one year and Strom Thurmond the next.

there's a weird paradox going on in the south and I wonder if any of you guys have noticed this. As some of the southern states have become more winnable at the presidential level - the ability to win statewide has also gone down. Like I think next door Georgia could probably elect dems if they were running Hollings type democrats - but the problem is that the state has enough democrats that ideological taqiyya isn't necessary. It's a kind of catch 22.

This doesn't explain why John 'My daddy stopped a lynching with this gun' Barrow lost in Georgia- and why the south seems to be scattered with moderate democrats who've lost when running as out and out moderates.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

what I find interesting is how a state that had a GOP senator for his whole tenure usually saw him winning easily. Like in 1980 where you had a twelve seat loss - he won by a 70-30 margin. I assume Strom agreed to support him in those races.

Reagan carried SC by 1.6% over Carter, and SC was Democratic at the state and local level in 1980.  Working class white voters were not sold on Country Club Republicans at the local level back then.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

what I find interesting is how a state that had a GOP senator for his whole tenure usually saw him winning easily. Like in 1980 where you had a twelve seat loss - he won by a 70-30 margin. I assume Strom agreed to support him in those races.

People used to think about their representatives in local terms rather than nationalized ideological ones.

The relevant question back then was: Is this person an effective advocate for my state?

There were plenty of people who saw no contradiction in voting for Fritz Hollings one year and Strom Thurmond the next.

there's a weird paradox going on in the south and I wonder if any of you guys have noticed this. As some of the southern states have become more winnable at the presidential level - the ability to win statewide has also gone down. Like I think next door Georgia could probably elect dems if they were running Hollings type democrats - but the problem is that the state has enough democrats that ideological taqiyya isn't necessary. It's a kind of catch 22.

This doesn't explain why John 'My daddy stopped a lynching with this gun' Barrow lost in Georgia- and why the south seems to be scattered with moderate democrats who've lost when running as out and out moderates.

What has happened is conservative Democrats that were conservative at the local level have died, and have not been replaced in the Democratic Party.  What has also happened at the LOCAL level is that local offices are now held by Republicans.  Many Democrats at local levels in the South switched parties, and people went along with it.  These local Democrats were conservatives and no longer saw it viable to run on the basis of differentiating themselves from the National Party.

As younger conservative, and even moderate voters in the South entered the GOP, the Democratic Parties in Southern states became as liberal as the rest of the Democratic Party.  The moderates and conservative working class folks in the South have no more ties to the Democratic Party at the local level.  They vote in the Republican Primary.  (In Hollings' day, there were far more Democratic Primary voters, even as the state went Republican at the national level.)  The Democratic Party is now a liberal party in the South; they are free to be as liberal as they want to be because in most cases, they are not going to win outside areas with large numbers of black voters. 

Nominating a moderate Democrat doesn't work in the South anymore because the constituency for such a candidate is a Republican now; they are not Democrats that need to be "won back".  Indeed, the majority of white Southerners now are lifelong Republicans, possibly even at local offices.  Winning the South today is much like winning Kansas, an area with potential to be won, but an area that has been out of reach for a while.  It's not about winning back voters; it's about winning new voters.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Wasn’t there a poster on here once a long time ago, called „Fritz Hollings - the cat“ ?

He still posts; he logged on today in fact!

[lfromnj]

what I find interesting is how a state that had a GOP senator for his whole tenure usually saw him winning easily. Like in 1980 where you had a twelve seat loss - he won by a 70-30 margin. I assume Strom agreed to support him in those races.

People used to think about their representatives in local terms rather than nationalized ideological ones.

The relevant question back then was: Is this person an effective advocate for my state?

There were plenty of people who saw no contradiction in voting for Fritz Hollings one year and Strom Thurmond the next.

there's a weird paradox going on in the south and I wonder if any of you guys have noticed this. As some of the southern states have become more winnable at the presidential level - the ability to win statewide has also gone down. Like I think next door Georgia could probably elect dems if they were running Hollings type democrats - but the problem is that the state has enough democrats that ideological taqiyya isn't necessary. It's a kind of catch 22.

This doesn't explain why John 'My daddy stopped a lynching with this gun' Barrow lost in Georgia- and why the south seems to be scattered with moderate democrats who've lost when running as out and out moderates.

There's your answer.

[Badger]

He was my choice for President in 1984, but his campaign didn't go on long enough for me to vote for him in the Florida Primary.  (I was a registered Democrat back then.)

Had Hollings been nominated, the Democrats would have not lost 49 states, and Hollings would have been the favorite to run in 1988. 

He would have lost 46 or 47 States. Let's get real. And after a defeat like that, his active political career would have been over.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

He was my choice for President in 1984, but his campaign didn't go on long enough for me to vote for him in the Florida Primary.  (I was a registered Democrat back then.)

Had Hollings been nominated, the Democrats would have not lost 49 states, and Hollings would have been the favorite to run in 1988. 

He would have lost 46 or 47 States. Let's get real. And after a defeat like that, his active political career would have been over.

Yes. I don't see Hollings coming close to a win in 1984. His nomination would probably discourage a number of liberal Democrats and conservative space had been firmly filled by Reagan.

Not that I think a liberal figure other than Mondale would've won either.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Also, it's kind of dissapointing to see no one mentioned Hollings' efforts to combat hunger in the U.S.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Also, it's kind of dissapointing to see no one mentioned Hollings' efforts to combat hunger in the U.S.

Because he was a somewhat conservative Democrat (though definitely a National Democrat, and nowhere near a conservative like, say, James Eastland), Hollings did not get the credit he deserved on that issue. 

I've actually known this since the early 1970s, when I received my first Almanac of American Politics (the 1974 edition) which discussed this aspect of Hollings' career.  He had toured his home state after becoming Senator and was shocked to find the level of hunger and starvation that actually existed.  This aspect of his career was not a feature of his 1984 campaign, however. 

Reagan/Bush (R) 376 EV
Hollings/Glenn (D) 162 EV

[Badger]

Also, it's kind of dissapointing to see no one mentioned Hollings' efforts to combat hunger in the U.S.

Because he was a somewhat conservative Democrat (though definitely a National Democrat, and nowhere near a conservative like, say, James Eastland), Hollings did not get the credit he deserved on that issue. 

I've actually known this since the early 1970s, when I received my first Almanac of American Politics (the 1974 edition) which discussed this aspect of Hollings' career.  He had toured his home state after becoming Senator and was shocked to find the level of hunger and starvation that actually existed.  This aspect of his career was not a feature of his 1984 campaign, however. 

Reagan/Bush (R) 376 EV
Hollings/Glenn (D) 162 EV

I followed the 1984 election very closely, and actually campaigned for Gary Hart in the primaries and Mondale in the general election. I followed the primaries quite closely as well. That is a ludicrously, downright absurdly optimistic projection for how Hollings would have done as the general nominee.

Although he had some vaguely moderate ish pantea to his campaign, can you name one significant issue which distinguished him from the rest of the democratic field (other than Rubin Askew)?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Also, it's kind of dissapointing to see no one mentioned Hollings' efforts to combat hunger in the U.S.

Because he was a somewhat conservative Democrat (though definitely a National Democrat, and nowhere near a conservative like, say, James Eastland), Hollings did not get the credit he deserved on that issue. 

I've actually known this since the early 1970s, when I received my first Almanac of American Politics (the 1974 edition) which discussed this aspect of Hollings' career.  He had toured his home state after becoming Senator and was shocked to find the level of hunger and starvation that actually existed.  This aspect of his career was not a feature of his 1984 campaign, however. 

Reagan/Bush (R) 376 EV
Hollings/Glenn (D) 162 EV

What? Minnesota went Democratic because it was Mondale's home state and only narrowly (Reagan not campaigning there was surely a factor). How on earth would it go for Hollings?

[Badger]

Also, it's kind of dissapointing to see no one mentioned Hollings' efforts to combat hunger in the U.S.

Because he was a somewhat conservative Democrat (though definitely a National Democrat, and nowhere near a conservative like, say, James Eastland), Hollings did not get the credit he deserved on that issue. 

I've actually known this since the early 1970s, when I received my first Almanac of American Politics (the 1974 edition) which discussed this aspect of Hollings' career.  He had toured his home state after becoming Senator and was shocked to find the level of hunger and starvation that actually existed.  This aspect of his career was not a feature of his 1984 campaign, however. 

Reagan/Bush (R) 376 EV
Hollings/Glenn (D) 162 EV

What? Minnesota went Democratic because it was Mondale's home state and only narrowly (Reagan not campaigning there was surely a factor). How on earth would it go for Hollings?

Reagan actually did campaign there near the end of the campaign when polls showed the state was closed and aiming for a 50 state sweep. Nevertheless, despite its Democratic leanings, there's little reason to believe that Fritz Hollings would have won it in 1984 when George McGovern couldn't in 1972. But again, this entire map is rather ludicrous.

Hell, Reagan won South Carolina in a landslide against Mondale. I would late better than fifty-fifty odds he could have squeaked out winning against Fritz Hollings. Though I wouldn't put money on it considering states were notably more parochial and supportive of their favorite son conservative Democrats back then. But if I had to bet my next paycheck....

I'd really love to hear how Hollings flipped near 10-point deficits in Georgia, Kentucky, and Ohio of all places, plus and even bigger margin in Arkansas.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Also, it's kind of dissapointing to see no one mentioned Hollings' efforts to combat hunger in the U.S.

Because he was a somewhat conservative Democrat (though definitely a National Democrat, and nowhere near a conservative like, say, James Eastland), Hollings did not get the credit he deserved on that issue. 

I've actually known this since the early 1970s, when I received my first Almanac of American Politics (the 1974 edition) which discussed this aspect of Hollings' career.  He had toured his home state after becoming Senator and was shocked to find the level of hunger and starvation that actually existed.  This aspect of his career was not a feature of his 1984 campaign, however. 

Reagan/Bush (R) 376 EV
Hollings/Glenn (D) 162 EV

What? Minnesota went Democratic because it was Mondale's home state and only narrowly (Reagan not campaigning there was surely a factor). How on earth would it go for Hollings?

Reagan actually did campaign there near the end of the campaign when polls showed the state was closed and aiming for a 50 state sweep. Nevertheless, despite its Democratic leanings, there's little reason to believe that Fritz Hollings would have won it in 1984 when George McGovern couldn't in 1972. But again, this entire map is rather ludicrous.

Hell, Reagan won South Carolina in a landslide against Mondale. I would late better than fifty-fifty odds he could have squeaked out winning against Fritz Hollings. Though I wouldn't put money on it considering states were notably more parochial and supportive of their favorite son conservative Democrats back then. But if I had to bet my next paycheck....

I'd really love to hear how Hollings flipped near 10-point deficits in Georgia, Kentucky, and Ohio of all places, plus and even bigger margin in Arkansas.

These states were very different then.  They were more Democratic at the local level, and Hollings was a Southerner and very attuned to the South.  And had he picked John Glenn as his running mate, it would have been the kind of Democrat that would have appealed to the Democratic Party in those states at the time, which was a coalition of black voters and working class white voters outvoting country club Republicans.

In 1980, Carter lost NC by 2 points, SC and KY by 1.5 points, TN by less than a point, AR by less than a point, and he won GA by 15 points.  Indeed, Carter did better in the South than he did in the Northeast; he lost MS by a point and AL by slightly over a point.  Indeed, it's not impossible that Hollings could have carried AL, MS, and TN as well. 

I can't emphasize that the Democratic Party was different at that time, and was at a crossroads.  It's nomination of Mondale was a disaster; Mondale was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign; he was one of the most uninspiring candidates I have ever seen on the stump.  I was never close to voting for Reagan in 1984, but I thought Mondale a terrible candidate who further destroyed the base of the Democratic Party.  In many ways, his defeat was even worse than McGovern's.

How bad was Mondale?  On the eve of the Florida primary, I thought it important to vote for Mondale.  This was the Friday before.  Then, over the weekend, I watched Mondale on TV shows convince me that this guy would get blown out, so I voted for Hart in the primary because, while I thought him a so-so candidate, I at least thought he'd carry some states.  Mondale was a terrible candidate, and the kind of candidate Congressional Democrats sought to run away from.  Mondale in 1984 demolished whatever recovery from the McGovern debacle the Democrats had managed to preserve.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Also, it's kind of dissapointing to see no one mentioned Hollings' efforts to combat hunger in the U.S.

Because he was a somewhat conservative Democrat (though definitely a National Democrat, and nowhere near a conservative like, say, James Eastland), Hollings did not get the credit he deserved on that issue.  

I've actually known this since the early 1970s, when I received my first Almanac of American Politics (the 1974 edition) which discussed this aspect of Hollings' career.  He had toured his home state after becoming Senator and was shocked to find the level of hunger and starvation that actually existed.  This aspect of his career was not a feature of his 1984 campaign, however.  

Reagan/Bush (R) 376 EV
Hollings/Glenn (D) 162 EV

What? Minnesota went Democratic because it was Mondale's home state and only narrowly (Reagan not campaigning there was surely a factor). How on earth would it go for Hollings?

Reagan actually did campaign there near the end of the campaign when polls showed the state was closed and aiming for a 50 state sweep. Nevertheless, despite its Democratic leanings, there's little reason to believe that Fritz Hollings would have won it in 1984 when George McGovern couldn't in 1972. But again, this entire map is rather ludicrous.

Hell, Reagan won South Carolina in a landslide against Mondale. I would late better than fifty-fifty odds he could have squeaked out winning against Fritz Hollings. Though I wouldn't put money on it considering states were notably more parochial and supportive of their favorite son conservative Democrats back then. But if I had to bet my next paycheck....

I'd really love to hear how Hollings flipped near 10-point deficits in Georgia, Kentucky, and Ohio of all places, plus and even bigger margin in Arkansas.

These states were very different then.  They were more Democratic at the local level, and Hollings was a Southerner and very attuned to the South.  And had he picked John Glenn as his running mate, it would have been the kind of Democrat that would have appealed to the Democratic Party in those states at the time, which was a coalition of black voters and working class white voters outvoting country club Republicans.

In 1980, Carter lost NC by 2 points, SC and KY by 1.5 points, TN by less than a point, AR by less than a point, and he won GA by 15 points.  Indeed, Carter did better in the South than he did in the Northeast; he lost MS by a point and AL by slightly over a point.  Indeed, it's not impossible that Hollings could have carried AL, MS, and TN as well.  

I can't emphasize that the Democratic Party was different at that time, and was at a crossroads.  It's nomination of Mondale was a disaster; Mondale was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign; he was one of the most uninspiring candidates I have ever seen on the stump.  I was never close to voting for Reagan in 1984, but I thought Mondale a terrible candidate who further destroyed the base of the Democratic Party.  In many ways, his defeat was even worse than McGovern's.

How bad was Mondale?  On the eve of the Florida primary, I thought it important to vote for Mondale.  This was the Friday before.  Then, over the weekend, I watched Mondale on TV shows convince me that this guy would get blown out, so I voted for Hart in the primary because, while I thought him a so-so candidate, I at least thought he'd carry some states.  Mondale was a terrible candidate, and the kind of candidate Congressional Democrats sought to run away from.  Mondale in 1984 demolished whatever recovery from the McGovern debacle the Democrats had managed to preserve.

Reagan's Approval on Election Day 1984 was 59% and he got 59% of the vote so really not much would have changed regardless of the candidate. Reagan's support was pretty uniform across the nation as well so I really dont think any Democratic candidate would have won more than 70 EV.


Also yes the south was more Democratic at the local level then but local level is far different than Presidential Level, and Reagan was very popular in the south. In 1980 Reagan was no where near as popular in the South as he was in 1984 so that's, why it was close as in 1980 , Reagan was still clearly the Western Candidate while in 1984 he was the Sunbelt+Suburbs candidate(Including SoCal as part of the Sunbelt).


This is what I think a best case scenario for Hollings would look like

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Hollings would have definitely carried New York.  Not by much, but he'd have pulled it off.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Hollings would have definitely carried New York.  Not by much, but he'd have pulled it off.

Dukakis a North Eastern Democrat only carried NY by 4 points in 1988 a year which was far more favorable for the Democrats than 1984.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Hollings would have definitely carried New York.  Not by much, but he'd have pulled it off.

Dukakis a North Eastern Democrat only carried NY by 4 points in 1988 a year which was far more favorable for the Democrats than 1984.

I really think you don't understand how lame a candidate Mondale was.

1984 did not have to be the disaster for the Democrats it turned out to be.  There were serious economic issues in the Farm Belt.  Americans had been in a significant recession as late as 1982.  Mondale's selection as a candidate was a major part of the reason why 1984 was so bad for the Democrats. 

Mondale lost in no small measure because he stated he would raise taxes.  And he campaigned on cutting the deficit, an issue on which no one believes the Democrats.  And he picked a lightweight running mate who was selected through a process that reeked of pandering that turned out to be a net negative. 

Hollings would likely not have beaten Reagan, but Reagan would have lost more states against Hollings. 

[Badger]

Also, it's kind of dissapointing to see no one mentioned Hollings' efforts to combat hunger in the U.S.

Because he was a somewhat conservative Democrat (though definitely a National Democrat, and nowhere near a conservative like, say, James Eastland), Hollings did not get the credit he deserved on that issue.  

I've actually known this since the early 1970s, when I received my first Almanac of American Politics (the 1974 edition) which discussed this aspect of Hollings' career.  He had toured his home state after becoming Senator and was shocked to find the level of hunger and starvation that actually existed.  This aspect of his career was not a feature of his 1984 campaign, however.  

Reagan/Bush (R) 376 EV
Hollings/Glenn (D) 162 EV

What? Minnesota went Democratic because it was Mondale's home state and only narrowly (Reagan not campaigning there was surely a factor). How on earth would it go for Hollings?

Reagan actually did campaign there near the end of the campaign when polls showed the state was closed and aiming for a 50 state sweep. Nevertheless, despite its Democratic leanings, there's little reason to believe that Fritz Hollings would have won it in 1984 when George McGovern couldn't in 1972. But again, this entire map is rather ludicrous.

Hell, Reagan won South Carolina in a landslide against Mondale. I would late better than fifty-fifty odds he could have squeaked out winning against Fritz Hollings. Though I wouldn't put money on it considering states were notably more parochial and supportive of their favorite son conservative Democrats back then. But if I had to bet my next paycheck....

I'd really love to hear how Hollings flipped near 10-point deficits in Georgia, Kentucky, and Ohio of all places, plus and even bigger margin in Arkansas.

These states were very different then.  They were more Democratic at the local level, and Hollings was a Southerner and very attuned to the South.  And had he picked John Glenn as his running mate, it would have been the kind of Democrat that would have appealed to the Democratic Party in those states at the time, which was a coalition of black voters and working class white voters outvoting country club Republicans.

In 1980, Carter lost NC by 2 points, SC and KY by 1.5 points, TN by less than a point, AR by less than a point, and he won GA by 15 points.  Indeed, Carter did better in the South than he did in the Northeast; he lost MS by a point and AL by slightly over a point.  Indeed, it's not impossible that Hollings could have carried AL, MS, and TN as well.  

I can't emphasize that the Democratic Party was different at that time, and was at a crossroads.  It's nomination of Mondale was a disaster; Mondale was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign; he was one of the most uninspiring candidates I have ever seen on the stump.  I was never close to voting for Reagan in 1984, but I thought Mondale a terrible candidate who further destroyed the base of the Democratic Party.  In many ways, his defeat was even worse than McGovern's.

How bad was Mondale?  On the eve of the Florida primary, I thought it important to vote for Mondale.  This was the Friday before.  Then, over the weekend, I watched Mondale on TV shows convince me that this guy would get blown out, so I voted for Hart in the primary because, while I thought him a so-so candidate, I at least thought he'd carry some states.  Mondale was a terrible candidate, and the kind of candidate Congressional Democrats sought to run away from.  Mondale in 1984 demolished whatever recovery from the McGovern debacle the Democrats had managed to preserve.

Reagan's Approval on Election Day 1984 was 59% and he got 59% of the vote so really not much would have changed regardless of the candidate. Reagan's support was pretty uniform across the nation as well so I really dont think any Democratic candidate would have won more than 70 EV.


Also yes the south was more Democratic at the local level then but local level is far different than Presidential Level, and Reagan was very popular in the south. In 1980 Reagan was no where near as popular in the South as he was in 1984 so that's, why it was close as in 1980 , Reagan was still clearly the Western Candidate while in 1984 he was the Sunbelt+Suburbs candidate(Including SoCal as part of the Sunbelt).


This is what I think a best case scenario for Hollings would look like

Speaking as someone who lived in campaign in West Pennsylvania in the 1984 election, as much as it pains me to say it, Rhode Island in Maryland before he won Pennsylvania.

[Badger]

Hollings would have definitely carried New York.  Not by much, but he'd have pulled it off.

Dukakis a North Eastern Democrat only carried NY by 4 points in 1988 a year which was far more favorable for the Democrats than 1984.

I really think you don't understand how lame a candidate Mondale was.

1984 did not have to be the disaster for the Democrats it turned out to be.  There were serious economic issues in the Farm Belt.  Americans had been in a significant recession as late as 1982.  Mondale's selection as a candidate was a major part of the reason why 1984 was so bad for the Democrats. 

Mondale lost in no small measure because he stated he would raise taxes.  And he campaigned on cutting the deficit, an issue on which no one believes the Democrats.  And he picked a lightweight running mate who was selected through a process that reeked of pandering that turned out to be a net negative. 

Hollings would likely not have beaten Reagan, but Reagan would have lost more states against Hollings. 

Mondale was no winner, but considering Hollings couldn't carry more than one or 2% of the vote in New Hampshire and Iowa, I don't think you realize how lame of a candidate Hollings was. And no, you can't blame that on liberal Democratic primary activist when supposed moderates like Bill Clinton did quite well in the New Hampshire primary.

This is such a myth of the great unknown conservative Democrat.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Fritz Hollings voted with the Dixiecrats during the Reagan era, that's why he voted for Clarence Thomas. Then, voted with liberals against the tax cuts. This in turn caused Alan Dixon to lose his seat to Carol Moseley Braun in IL

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

While I'm not going to celebrate his passing like a tankie leftist,
If Ilhan Omar said what Fritz Hollings did about Bush doing the Iraq war to win Jewish Voters, there would have been a massive outcry(and rightfully). She said something far less offensive(I certainly wasn't offended by it(Im jewish), but I would have been offended by what Fritz Hollings said) and was still chastised for it.