Gillibrand
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:12:19 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Gillibrand
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Gillibrand  (Read 2176 times)
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 14, 2012, 01:16:15 PM »

Watching her now with the DoD budget hearings in the Senate... what's all the fuss? Why does everyone think she will run for President- seems like a nice person but nothing extraodrinary at all!
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2012, 01:20:51 PM »

"OMG, a woman Senator from New York... she's just like Hillary Clinton," basically.
Logged
Vote UKIP!
MasterSanders
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 990
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2012, 02:01:12 PM »

"OMG, a woman Senator from New York... she's just like Hillary Clinton," basically.

Unlike the stereotype of liberal women, Gillibrand is more feminine than, say, Hillary or Napolitano.
Logged
HST1948
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 577


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2012, 03:11:01 PM »

I never really got the whole Gillibrand for president thing.  She comes across as a nice, sincere, and intelligent person and she would please most of Democratic base, but to me, she just doesn't come across as presidential.  Her voice is is very feminine, and lacks the conviction and severity of Hillary Clinton or Marget Thatcher. In addition, her speeches in my opinion lack a certain quality to them that grab you.  Don't get me wrong, I like her a lot and think that she is a great senator.  My sister has been able to meet her several times through her work as a news reporter, and said she is a wonderful and sincere person, I just don't see her as president.
Logged
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2012, 03:57:38 PM »

Not being Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher does not disqualify you for the Presidency.
Logged
Reginald
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 802
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2012, 09:01:50 PM »

She's not the best choice out there, no. But the buzz surrounding her makes more sense to me than the talk about McCaskill or especially Klobuchar.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2012, 10:00:28 PM »

Not being Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher does not disqualify you for the Presidency.

Being Margaret Thatcher does disqualify you for the Presidency.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2012, 01:20:58 AM »
« Edited: February 19, 2012, 01:28:38 AM by Nathan »

Gillibrand has in the past demonstrated the ability to evolve her views without seeming like a flip-flopper. Being able to be pragmatic without coming across Kerry/Romney style is an underrated political skill. The fact that she has very feminine gender presentation (relative to people like Hillary or Thatcher, not necessarily to women in other fields than politics) might, conceivably, be spun as an unusual or interesting enough trait to offset any negatives, particularly since Republicans tend to win male voters anyway. Elizabeth Warren has some of the same attributes but is also a lot more of a magnet for controversy than Gillibrand, and can come across as 'dark'/'nagging' feminine rather than 'light'/'nurturing' feminine at times.

(It should be noted: I do not endorse the gender archetypes in the previous paragraph; it's just my perception of the broader perception of these people.)

For the record, I'm a huge fan of Senator Gillibrand personally and (most, but not by any means all, of the time) politically, but she wouldn't be my first choice for a 2016 candidate, partially because I don't foresee 2016 as being an incredibly good year for our party anyway (though that might, of course, change if Obama has a totally kickass second term or something).
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2012, 01:04:59 PM »

Her voice is is very feminine, and lacks the conviction and severity of Hillary Clinton or Marget Thatcher.

I understand where this is coming from, but it still seems sexist. Especially when you consider that Hillary Clinton deliberately altered her natural voice to make it seem deeper, and not only was she criticized for this ('being phony' and whatnot) she still didn't come close to matching the booming, authoritative sounds emanating from the Senator from Illinois. Culturally I suppose we are trained expect to hear a strong voice from the President, but in this day and age it's more important that the voice reflects a strong personality behind it. The rest has no objective bearing on leadership ability.
Logged
HST1948
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 577


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2012, 02:01:06 PM »

Her voice is is very feminine, and lacks the conviction and severity of Hillary Clinton or Marget Thatcher.

I understand where this is coming from, but it still seems sexist. Especially when you consider that Hillary Clinton deliberately altered her natural voice to make it seem deeper, and not only was she criticized for this ('being phony' and whatnot) she still didn't come close to matching the booming, authoritative sounds emanating from the Senator from Illinois. Culturally I suppose we are trained expect to hear a strong voice from the President, but in this day and age it's more important that the voice reflects a strong personality behind it. The rest has no objective bearing on leadership ability.

I absolutely agree with everything you said, and I did not intend to be sexist.  What I was just trying to get at was that Americans tend to like candidates with strong authoritative voices and good speech making abilities.  I think Gillibrand would make a great president and would be one of my top choices in the primary
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 12 queries.