The Democratic primary season has exposed a lot of the sexism on the left side of the political spectrum, a side that normally escapes heavy scrutiny because when compared to the right…
Yeah, I really how the author mentions that Clinton would have her own bros and that Melania Trump is getting some truly disgusting shit from ~liberal folks.
One fine morning in the last two weeks, NPR interviewed a GOP strategist who said that if Donald Trump got the GOP nomination, HRC could easily afford to sit back and "drink mimosas" through November and she'd still have the election in the bag. Just saying.
I head a columnist from conservative Indiana today on NPR saying basically the same thing. That even Indiana might go for Clinton in the general against either Trump OR Cruz, they're both so bad. And you could tell this guy was a moderately conservative Republican by some of the other little things he let slip. Yet he didn't sound upset by the prospect of Clinton taking Indiana at all, compared to Trump or Cruz.
-This was definitely a more nuanced take than I was expecting from the title overall, but I still had a few issues with some of the points. -As someone who HAS voted for Warren, I can assure the author that not everyone who supports Sanders would only imaginary-support Warren. In a Sanders-vs-Warren contest, I'd vote for Warren in a heartbeat. I think she's far more electable than Bernie. -As a Massachusetts resident, I'm not blaming Warren for Bernie's losing our state. Boston is the reason Clinton won. Bernie won the vast majority of towns, but Clinton won Boston by a much larger margin than she won the state overall. Statistically it was almost a tie, and Bill Clinton came very close to breaking some election laws by entering polling places around Boston. And popular Boston mayor Marty Walsh, who's got a reputation as being progressive, came out and endorsed Clinton.
But as a fellow MA resident who has also enthusiastically voted for Warren, you've gotta admit the sexism against her in the senate race was godawful (even as some of the criticisms of her were also valid, as much of a fan as I am). That's part of what concerns me the next time around, no matter who is on deck.
As a Clinton supporter I can say that Warren would have fallen into the same category as Obama for me. I supported Clinton in 2008 as well, but really had no issue with Obama getting the nomination and happily voted for him in the general. With Bernie it would have just been like "Okay I'll vote for this guy, meh, because Trump". Bernie would have gotten my vote, but that is all. It would have been like "Okay you won, now I wish you well. I'm gonna go do other things." Warren like Obama is someone I can get behind and actively support.
I find narrative building a subject of interest in a lot of ways, especially in regards to data reality-- which, to me, shows how narrative is ultimately something that often trumps data. (that's why 538 is such a good site btw
( ... )
Comments 9
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
-This was definitely a more nuanced take than I was expecting from the title overall, but I still had a few issues with some of the points.
-As someone who HAS voted for Warren, I can assure the author that not everyone who supports Sanders would only imaginary-support Warren. In a Sanders-vs-Warren contest, I'd vote for Warren in a heartbeat. I think she's far more electable than Bernie.
-As a Massachusetts resident, I'm not blaming Warren for Bernie's losing our state. Boston is the reason Clinton won. Bernie won the vast majority of towns, but Clinton won Boston by a much larger margin than she won the state overall. Statistically it was almost a tie, and Bill Clinton came very close to breaking some election laws by entering polling places around Boston. And popular Boston mayor Marty Walsh, who's got a reputation as being progressive, came out and endorsed Clinton.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment