In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
Marx is largely viewed as the most evil person to ever exist by right wingers so maybe a poor example from you
But,
its one thing to engage in low level hypocrisy. Its another to be on the same level as Joel Osteen
You’re citing the right? Their whole political philosophy necessitates enormous wealth inequality, wars as land and resource grabs, starvation and genocide. Who cares what they think of Marx who was resolutely against all of those things. Of course they hate him.
Come on, the old specious 'if you're such a communist why don't you [give away all your possessions/emigrate to the USSR]?' "gotcha" beloved of conservatives everywhere? Really?
Socialists are allowed to like nice things too, you know.
Hasan's real hypocrisy is that he is a Democrat. he goes to the DNC and endorses Democrats and gets puff pieces in the mainstream press about how he wants to influence the Democratic party.
his main purpose is to steer the disillusioned back to the Dems. hes like the last line of defense. similar to Bernie. they call it sheepdogging.
Your observation is perhaps the most forceful argument against representative democracy. The skillset to govern well not necessarily the skillset to get elected. Especially these days. It's possible Nixon lost his close election to Kennedy because he looked bad on tee-vee.
It isn't as if other methods of selecting political leaders have a superior track record of sorting for good governance compared to representative democracy.
Nixon isn't a great example of what I am describing. He looked terrible on TV and eventually turned out to be a terrible president.
Hasan's real hypocrisy is that he is a Democrat. he goes to the DNC and endorses Democrats and gets puff pieces in the mainstream press about how he wants to influence the Democratic party.
his main purpose is to steer the disillusioned back to the Dems. hes like the last line of defense. similar to Bernie. they call it sheepdogging.
If true it’s more of a valid criticism of hypocrisy than “zomg he rich”. One of his fundraisers raised $1.2M for CARE international, another raised $1M for Palestine.
People are so used to right wing grifters now that any non poor left winger is immediately suspected of the same.
It isn't as if other methods of selecting political leaders have a superior track record of sorting for good governance compared to representative democracy.
Agreed.
Nixon isn't a great example of what I am describing. He looked terrible on TV and eventually turned out to be a terrible president.
I don't necessarily agree he was a terrible president. At least I don't think political historians rank him in the 'terrible' category, if that means anything. But even if he was terrible, 'on paper' he looked like a better candidate than Kennedy. Polls showed that folks who listened to the debates on radio favored Nixon overall.
addendum:
Survey of political historians ranked Nixon #28.
If true it’s more of a valid criticism of hypocrisy than “zomg he rich”. One of his fundraisers raised $1.2M for CARE international, another raised $1M for Palestine.
People are so used to right wing grifters now that any non poor left winger is immediately suspected of the same.
Hilarious that the guy who has a net worth closer to a billion than 1 million can put up 50k and get full throated credit for his viewers donations while likely pocketing more than the 50k he put up for himself and getting the tax write off
I'm not sure what you think he is actually doing here
It's not like that at all. You essentially are arguing that we can't gauge whether pizza tastes worse if we burn it unless we have a really good piece of pizza to burn.
we're dealing with a sample of 2, and two women who were never particularly popular at a national level at any juncture in their careers
we figured - hey let's anoint them and then when things ended predictably, we blame misogyny or that "it's tough for women to win"
people said the same about black presidents, i heard my entire life growing up that we'd never have a black president, that we were too racist a country and then we had barack, one of the best candidates ever and lo and behold people overwhelmingly supported him
put out a decent candidate and we can see
kamala had some historically bad approval ratings as a vp and her presidential run in 2020 fizzled out and never caught any momentum - she was a horrendous choice made by a party who figured "any warm body will do"
and this is the kind of cheap non-substance personal attack which is why you will probably be confused when you lose again to another buffoon in 2 years
Hilarious that the guy who has a net worth closer to a billion than 1 million can put up 50k and get full throated credit for his viewers donations while likely pocketing more than the 50k he put up for himself and getting the tax write off
I'm not sure what you think he is actually doing here
I dunno. The quick google I did said he’s worth a few million.
can you imagine the "america is not ready for a black president" excuses that herman cain would have received had obama never been around?
we're dealing with a sample of 2, and two women who were never particularly popular at a national level at any juncture in their careerswe figured - hey let's anoint them and then when things ended predictably, we blame misogyny or that "it's tough for women to win"people said the same about black presidents, i heard my entire life growing up that we'd never have a black presid
This is completely nonresponsive to what I wrote. I never claimed that HRC or Kamala was a strong candidate. I was disputing your contention that a candidate has to be intrinsically strong in order for us to be able to draw conclusions about whether the candidate likely paid a penalty -- not necessarily a decisive penalty, but a penalty nonetheless -- for being a women. Why would that be the case? It's a hard thing to measure, for sure, but it doesn't become easier or harder to measure just because the candidate is intrinsically stronger or weaker.
we're dealing with a sample of 2, and two women who were never particularly popular at a national level at any juncture in their careers
Clinton won the popular vote. Seems to me that made her pretty popular.
It isn't as if other methods of selecting political leaders have a superior track record of sorting for good governance compared to representative democracy.
Nixon isn't a great example of what I am describing. He looked terrible on TV and eventually turned out to be a terrible president.
Nixon wasn’t as good of a candidate as Kennedy, but overall he must have been pretty decent since he won 2 terms including one in a huge landslide.
He has some similarities to Hillary with both of them being very smart and calculating, although he was way better at connecting with people than her.
My foreign read was Harris also suffered badly from her policy approach of 'nothing new needed'.
He can call himself the Easter Bunny but based on what he actually advocates, which is all that really matters, is much closer to a social democrat than a socialist.
...he's essentially more of a social capitalist if we're going to use really dumb terms.
Key Policy Areas
Healthcare: Advocates for a single-payer, universal "Medicare-for-All" system to replace private insurance.
Economy & Labor: Proposes raising the federal minimum wage, strengthening unions, and increasing taxes on corporations and the wealthy.
Climate Change: Proposes a $16.3 trillion "Green New Deal" to transition to renewable energy and create 20 million jobs.
Education: Supports tuition-free public colleges and universities, as well as canceling student loan debt.
Foreign Policy: Advocates for reduced military spending, increased diplomacy, and restricting military aid to countries like Israel.
Social Issues: Supports protecting abortion rights, LGBTQ equality, and significant immigration reform.
Technology & AI: Focuses on regulating the impact of artificial intelligence on workers and limiting the influence of "AI oligarchs".
and
Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, advocates for expanding public ownership and worker control of the economy as a way to reduce income inequality, empower employees, and ensure that companies serve the public good rather than just shareholders. Throughout his career, he has supported transitioning ownership away from the affluent toward workers and the public through worker cooperatives, union empowerment, and, in some sectors, direct government ownership
Maybe but it aint bad for a merican.
I dont follow the details of him closely. Sounds good though.
It would be a good start at least
It's all relative. You have to remember who her opponent was.
That’s true. You’ve never put up a good male candidate either but it doesn't seem to deter people from voting for them.
obama
clinton
reagan
kennedy
eisenhower
This is completely nonresponsive to what I wrote. I never claimed that HRC or Kamala was a strong candidate. I was disputing your contention that a candidate has to be intrinsically strong in order for us to be able to draw conclusions about whether the candidate likely paid a penalty -- not necessarily a decisive penalty, but a penalty nonetheless -- for being a women. Why
what empirical evidence is there that hillary and kamala would have won if they had identical traits but just happened to be men?
what empirical evidence is there that hillary and kamala would have won if they had identical traits but just happened to be men?
you’re dodging the actual problem
you’re saying we can measure a gender penalty regardless of candidate strength, but you still need some way to isolate gender from everything else, otherwise you’re just attributing leftover variance to sexism because it fits the story
with candidates like hillary and kamala, who both had well-documented issues with favorability, messaging, and campaign execution, how are you separating any supposed “penalty” from those factors?
because if the answer is basically “they underperformed expectations,” then that’s not measurement, that’s backfilling an explanation after the fact
you’re dodging the actual problemyou’re saying we can measure a gender penalty regardless of candidate strength, but you still need some way to isolate gender from everything else, otherwise you’re just attributing leftover variance to sexism because it fits the storywith candidates like hillary and kamala, who both had well-documented issues with favorability, messaging, and c
I mean Hillary did peak at 66% favorability. Not bad for someone who we look back on now as if everyone hated her.
