Which are the fairer assessments of the election? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 03:50:24 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Which are the fairer assessments of the election? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
The Republican Party won in spite of their nominee being Trump
 
#2
Donald Trump in spite of being a Republican
 
#3
The Democrats lost because of Hillary
 
#4
Hillary lost because of the Democrats
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 113

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: Which are the fairer assessments of the election?  (Read 2018 times)
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,719
United States


WWW
« on: January 05, 2017, 11:03:19 PM »

Hillary's campaign was uniquely annoying.  Lecturing Trump on his behavior was a YUGE turnoff.  Why wouldn't she think Trump couldn't insult his way to the Presidency?  No one really likes her, and Trump proved that slinging mud really works.

Hillary got down in the dirt with Trump.  Bad move.  She should have stuck to policy, tied Trump in knots, and hope that this would keep voters in the middle from giving into their dislike of her.  Instead, she lectured Trump, and that turned lots of voters off, because they find her annoying to start with.

Then, too, there was all this emphasis on "our daughters", "women and girls",  and "the example for our kids", etc.  To that, I'd point out (A) that 1/2 of all kids are males, (B) which means that parents of sons felt left out in Hillary's diatribes, (C) and this reinforced the impression that Hillary was all for improving the lot of women and girls at the expense of men and boys.  Lots of women who are parents of boys know that the condition of boys in America isn't that great, either, and they perceive Hillary as part of the "blame the boys" crowd.  This is not to say that Trump's rhetoric was always commendable; it certainly wasn't.  But Hillary's campaign strategy, her persona, and her pot-calling-the-kettle-black-tut-tutting were just stupid, stupid moves on the part of a candidate who, really, has made herself repulsive to half of America.
Logged
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,719
United States


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2017, 07:38:34 PM »

Hillary's campaign was uniquely annoying.  Lecturing Trump on his behavior was a YUGE turnoff.  Why wouldn't she think Trump couldn't insult his way to the Presidency?  No one really likes her, and Trump proved that slinging mud really works.

Hillary got down in the dirt with Trump.  Bad move.  She should have stuck to policy, tied Trump in knots, and hope that this would keep voters in the middle from giving into their dislike of her.  Instead, she lectured Trump, and that turned lots of voters off, because they find her annoying to start with.

Then, too, there was all this emphasis on "our daughters", "women and girls",  and "the example for our kids", etc.  To that, I'd point out (A) that 1/2 of all kids are males, (B) which means that parents of sons felt left out in Hillary's diatribes, (C) and this reinforced the impression that Hillary was all for improving the lot of women and girls at the expense of men and boys.  Lots of women who are parents of boys know that the condition of boys in America isn't that great, either, and they perceive Hillary as part of the "blame the boys" crowd.  This is not to say that Trump's rhetoric was always commendable; it certainly wasn't.  But Hillary's campaign strategy, her persona, and her pot-calling-the-kettle-black-tut-tutting were just stupid, stupid moves on the part of a candidate who, really, has made herself repulsive to half of America.

Eh I think your criticisms of her campaign are too nit picky. I can't think of people save for outright sexists who were turned off by her advocacy for women and children. It's her niche; that would be like people criticizing a Catholic church for being too focused on Catholic communities and not enough on non-Catholics.

I'm convinced too that annoyance at Clinton's persona is the height of sexist nit-picking. Oh, she's annoying? Nobody's ever been elected or not-elected President for being annoying, or shrill, or for their generic "persona."

If you were a parent of boys (as I am), you might see things differently.

Before you fire off some piece of ignorance about how I'm some kind of sexist, I'm also a grandfather of seven granddaughters.  One of my sons is 11 (the other two are grown), so I am aware of what kids of both genders are going through in the here and now.

Lots of folks are shrill and annoying.  Lyin' Ted and Little Marco fit that mold.  They are nowhere near the hypocrites that Hillary is in doing so, however.  Someone who conducts campaigns to trash the reputations of Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey for the benefit of her own political future (which would have ended in 1999 if she hadn't trashed them) isn't the person I want lecturing me as to how to behave.  Hillary has the shrillness of someone who believes it's all about them; she cannot exude a modicum of humility, no matter how hard she tries.  That's a quality that's unpleasant from any gender.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.024 seconds with 15 queries.