The moral case for Hillary Clinton

[moonshaz]

The moral case for Hillary Clinton: Even if you might dislike her, this isn’t the year to back a third-party candidate
Voters planning to support Jill Stein or Gary Johnson should take a moment to examine the potential consequences “What would it take for you to vote for a third-party candidate

Comments

[hikerpoet]

I agree with you that gender should not excuse bad policy...but how is it normalized? Like at all?

Women are just over ten percent of governors. Just about a quarter of state legislatures, just over fifteen percent of mayors.

Less than ten percent in top management, about fifteen in board of director positions of all kinds...
Thirty percent of professors...

The percentage for people of color is also very low and for women of color for any of these things is low single digits...

Percentage of women who have been president of the United States (or even been nominated by a major party until now): 0

I'm nearly 40. Life expectancy-wise, odds are I might have ten more elections, ten more chances to see a woman president elected. That's...really not that many. Probably cut that nearly in half considering incumbents do have very high odds, of taking the nomination at least.

We'll take out the fact that she really *does* have a decent chance of making it this time. That factor aside, it'd be quite literally one role of the dice that *anyone* in Generation X would see a woman president, and probably less than that as they are still fighting systemic bias. Never mind the generation above us where this really likely is their sole chance.

Again, to reiterate, that doesn't excuse truly bad policy (some of which is admittedly quite problematic and some that is perceived as such is framed through decades of bias and attacks from the right). Some of hers is bad (and I sympathize with some who find certain issues inexcusable) and, in my opinion, some of hers is phenomenal.

But I'm not laying that out because I'm saying, "Oooh, it would be neato frito for people to SEE in their lifetime".
I'm laying it out to illustrate how very very far it is from normalized.

Yes, these numbers are improved from the past (!!!), but how is that concept normalized? Like, at all? How?

[blackjedii]

The idea of women being part of government and leader is normalized for Millennials and young girls.

It's not true now, I agree. BUT most of us under like, 35, don't use gender as a metric as to whether someone is electable or not because for the younger group there is no reason a woman CAN'T be.

Now if it pays off with more women being involved... we'll have to wait and see. It's going to have to come from more grassroots like anything else but many of the hurdles wrt "lol women can't rule they have periods" are gone for the up and coming voting blocs.

[hikerpoet]

You're right that it *shouldn't* be a metric. And shouldn't be a factor in inexcusable-to-you-policies.

But we're not in such a post-racist or post-sexist world that when it comes to comparing multiple candidates those elements shouldn't be a factor in analyzing their arc, their real and actual opportunities, the way that how people react to them over their life affects decisions and behavior, and more.

[_marquis]

I feel you. Millennial women thinking the idea of women in power is fine doesn't mean jack shit until it actually happens. So much talk from millennial women about "empowerment" and not a whole lot of actual power gaining. And it kinda rubs me the wrong way that we have to wait for some perfect 100% ideologically pure woman candidate to feel comfortable voting for them, when we so often and so consistently vote in mediocre men who are considerably less qualified. So I'll take an imperfect, but intelligent, qualified, capable woman over the dumpster fire that is Trump. (I don't wanna hear about 3rd parties, IMHO irrelevant until they get a real grassroots movement going, the greens expect what the republicans and democrats took roughly 150 years to build to be done in an election cycle).

[moonshaz]

I feel you both. I'm a baby boomer, and this probably IS going to be my only chance. And I want it to happen, damn it.

Ironically, though, considering how much a woman president would mean to me personally, her gender is NOT the main reason I think people should vote for her. She's arguably the most qualified person who has EVER run for the office of potus, and her opponent is a narcissistic man baby, who is is NO WAY qualified to be president or capable of handling the responsibilities of that office. It's a no brainer, afaic.