People might not vote for Trump because he's a womanizer and people might not vote for Warren because she's a woman. All things are equal.

???

I assume this is meant to be sarcasm but the fact that the poll you are worried about says that 33% of people wouldn't vote for someone married 3 times and that a colossal ****** won in 2016 DESPITE THAT HANDICAP kind of shows that maybe the 4% of "liberals" who said they wouldn't hypothetically vote for a woman in 2007 is not super relevant ?

Saying you would not vote for someone based on a fairly good indicator of their character is not equivalent to saying you would not vote for someone because they are a woman. The latter is indicative of deeply held biases. That said, yes, I'm sure Donald Trump's womanizing did cost him votes.

I imagine lots of those people who said they wouldn't vote for someone on his third wife still voted for Trump.

I'm not sure what your point is... you think the people saying they won't vote for a woman are more honest / more accurately predicting their future behavior?

I mean, maybe? But the point still stands that the poll that is supposed to prove me wrong (because lol 4% of "liberals" wouldn't vote for a woman) showed that 40% of conservatives wouldn't vote for someone married three times and, you know, lol.

These hypotheticals are not good predictors of people's actual behavior. ~all of those 40% came to the polls in 2016 saying "Yeah of course I said that but the opponent is the literal devil who rapes children with pizza" and voted for the man anyway and that lol-tiny 4% of liberals are all voting against Trump in 2020 if they are actually liberals.

Also there would be people specifically energized to vote for a woman as well.

Clearly.

I guess it remains to be seen whether Elizabeth Warren can turn out the Democratic vote in a way that HRC could not. I will say this. GOP voters, and especially Trump supporters, hate Warren at least as much as they hate HRC, and they hate Warren wayyyy more than they hate any other Democratic candidate (way more, for example, than they hate Bernie). And the only Democratic politician they put in the same category is Nancy Pelosi.

Visceral, almost violent, hatred of female Democratic politicians over the age of, say, 55 is a very real thing, regardless of how liberal or centrist those politicians are.

It's hard to estimate how much impact that hatred would have on GOP turnout, but it likely has a slight effect. GOP hatred probably shouldn't change how anyone votes in the Democratic primary because that feels like a super gross reason to vote for one Democratic candidate over another, but it does make me a little bearish about Warren's chances in a general election.

John McAfee

@IEC: Most of what you're saying there is fine (although not really fair to ignore the 11% of moderates, but whatevs). But the claim being argued here is this one.

Which is pretty close to "sexism isn't a serious thing," or "no serious sexist would vote D in a Pres election anyway" neither of which is true. It's also somewhat contradicted by your statement that people will be "specifically energized to vote for a woman."

I mean maybe you will argue that writing "~0" rather than "0" allows for the actual figure to be 2 percent, but 2 percent is huge in a Pres election.

I mostly just think hypothetical poll questions like that don't accurately predict behavior when the person is presented with actual choices. I'm also pretty skeptical of the self-identifications among the groups of people that are self selecting as "liberal" and then saying they would under no conditions vote for a woman or a black person or whatever. I'm not saying there aren't racist or sexist liberals; just that the group of people who literally fill out the form "liberal" and "hardcore racist" should be viewed with a lot of skepticism.


None of these are what I'm really trying to say. My point is that in an election like Warren vs. Trump where the candidates are basically polar opposites on EVERYTHING, the opportunity for people's sexism to impact their voting is very low. Like you would have to be a basically a single issue voter on the issue of male power in order for the deciding issue between Warren and Trump to be the fact that Trump is a man. I'm pretty confident that r/MensRights was already breaking hard for Trump.

The other issue you bring up is that some sexist dems might just be less motivated to vote or not show up and, maybe. But I'm not convinced it wouldn't be cancelled out equally by "pro woman" forces.

---

If it were a hypothetical election between more similar candidates I wouldn't make the same argument.

This might be true among people who are 100% guaranteed to vote, but it ignores the effect on turnout.

Not even going to address the last part of your post because it’s nonsensical, but yes I would support Hillary if she rran in 2020.

For the primary or the general?

For the general, abso****inglutely. For the primary, HELL NO.

This.

There has to be room for pragmatism. Hillary might win in a rematch, but I can't see a realistic 2020 Dem option who has a worse win expectation. That may very well be unjust, which matters very little to the 2020 primary decision.

IEC, I think everyone's point regarding turnout is valid. If the electorate is in fact sexist enough to count Warren's gender against her it doesn't matter that their only other option is Trump. There is always the third option, stay home, and like it or not that's an option that is heavily exercised in our elections.

Your better point was about the polls showing a huge disadvantage for candidates with multiple marriages. Did that actually hurt Trump? Some suggested that maybe it did, but I'm not buying that, especially not to the degree that the polling suggested. To believe that would be to believe that some hypothetical version of Trump who was still on his first marriage would win in a landslide. That's not realistic. But I don't think it's as simple as saying the polls are just grossly wrong. More likely is that context matters. Someone with Trump's persona is not going to be penalized for that as much as a candidate that tries to take the "family values" platform seriously.

So the discussion should be about whether Warren is more or less likely to trigger feelings of sexism in likely Democratic voters as HRC did. I'm sure HRC did face a penalty by being a woman because she cast herself as an expert on things. She was able to formulate complex policy positions based on her own intelligence and experience. That's the kind of thing that people prone to sexism have trouble seeing from a woman. Warren knows enough about financial law to be competent but she gives the impression that even her policy positions in that area are based more on moral goals than wonky economic blueprints. Of course I could be wrong on this because Warren apparently triggers people in ways I don't really get. But I am fairly confident in the premise that sexism isn't applied equally to all women, and figuring out how it will affect Warren specifically is far more relevant than any generic poll.

My question was about the primary. I'm assuming that's what jmakin was answering since I specifically asked about the primary, unless he misread the question. If that's his preference then that's his preference. I disagree entirely and I hope he's in the minority (hope even more she has the sense not to enter).

I think it is wrong to assume that Warren will come off as significantly less wonkish than HRC in a general election. She was a law professor for twenty years, mainly teaching contracts, bankruptcy, etc. That's about as wonky as it gets. That's who she is. Bernie is more likely to come across as someone with broad moral agenda and less specifics on the practical steps for achieving that agenda.

She triggers people on the far left because she’s smart and often knows what she’s talking about. That means she’s just another corporate stooge. Her triggering people on the right is standard my team or not my team politics.

i do not know if you can offer wagers on this site, but if anyone wants liz warren at even vs. that dolt trump i would be willing to lose some of my hard earned currecy. we can even have mr. sklansky be the holder of the funds. this was sent from my desktop

lolz

JFC, you think you can say that just because all the **** you said about Warren was nuked along with your last account?

Damn, Jodi Foster took a huge heel turn.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...0&postcount=71

Do you dislike her because you're on the far left or because you're a partisan on the right?

Related:

Poster microbet has been saying all along that the midwest, KY, OK and such places are not anti-progressive and it's stupid to think they need conservative Democrats because they are largely Republican. It's the centrist Democrats that they hate. Democratic centrism is for the rich Democrats, mainly on the coast. They want tax cuts, they don't like unions, they want their kids to go to charter schools if they live in metropolitan areas where there are a lot of minorities, but they have gay friends and think love is love (and they're right about that).