advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
It's Kaine.
Posted by: beagledave
Date: July 22, 2016 07:19PM
No real surprise.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: vision63
Date: July 22, 2016 07:28PM
Let's Go

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Steve G.
Date: July 22, 2016 07:28PM
I'm so excited.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: vision63
Date: July 22, 2016 08:04PM
A woman in today's America is kinda forced to make the safe choice.

I understand, but what people tend to do is forget about is what country we live in. Look at the white man Donald Trump (and even Newt Gingrich for that matter).

Imagine Hillary having 3 husbands and 3 baby's daddies. Or Obama with 3 wives and 3 baby's mama's. Both campaigns would have never happened. None of this is even and it's 2016.

Tim Kaine reflects a safe choice especially since Trump dives headfirst into Demagoguery.

"Hillary Clinton is a boss. Everything about her demeanor is presidential! The organization, structure, message control, steadiness, intellect." From my buddy
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Speedy
Date: July 22, 2016 09:11PM
She certainly won't be upstaged by her VP on the charisma front, unlike the McCain-Palin ticket. Even Romney-Ryan had some of that. And obviously that was the main idea besides hoping for Virginia's electoral votes.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Ted King
Date: July 22, 2016 09:32PM
I don't like the choice.

After a two term presidency there is a strong tendency for swing voters to vote for change just for the sake of change. Particularly with satisfaction with the direction of the country polling numbers being very low. Particularly after a primary season where it has been clear that there is a pretty strong anti-establishment sentiment amongst much of the electorate. Kaine does nothing to address those things.

I don't think choosing him will make a difference in Clinton getting elected or not unless it becomes a very tight election so I'm not despondent or anything. I will vote for her, but I am disappointed enough that I am seriously thinking of not sending any money to the campaign, though.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2016 09:33PM by Ted King.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Speedy
Date: July 22, 2016 09:35PM
At least Pocahontas stays in the Senate!



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Dennis S
Date: July 22, 2016 09:35PM
Maybe she picked him because he's relatively qualified. Unlike Dan Quayle and you-know-who.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: vision63
Date: July 22, 2016 09:48PM
Quote
Ted King
I don't like the choice.

After a two term presidency there is a strong tendency for swing voters to vote for change just for the sake of change. Particularly with satisfaction with the direction of the country polling numbers being very low. Particularly after a primary season where it has been clear that there is a pretty strong anti-establishment sentiment amongst much of the electorate. Kaine does nothing to address those things.

I don't think choosing him will make a difference in Clinton getting elected or not unless it becomes a very tight election so I'm not despondent or anything. I will vote for her, but I am disappointed enough that I am seriously thinking of not sending any money to the campaign, though.

This assumes what I said was completely invalid, which it was not.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Ted King
Date: July 22, 2016 09:53PM
Quote
vision63
Quote
Ted King
I don't like the choice.

After a two term presidency there is a strong tendency for swing voters to vote for change just for the sake of change. Particularly with satisfaction with the direction of the country polling numbers being very low. Particularly after a primary season where it has been clear that there is a pretty strong anti-establishment sentiment amongst much of the electorate. Kaine does nothing to address those things.

I don't think choosing him will make a difference in Clinton getting elected or not unless it becomes a very tight election so I'm not despondent or anything. I will vote for her, but I am disappointed enough that I am seriously thinking of not sending any money to the campaign, though.

This assumes what I said was completely invalid, which it was not.

What you said about the electoral psychology this year and what I said are not necessarily incompatible, but we do seem to have a disagreement about what factors will have the greater influence on the electorate this year.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: vision63
Date: July 22, 2016 09:54PM
He wasn't my first choice, but I get why he was chosen. I don't think she would have stepped out side of the whole concept of carrying a swing state.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: billb
Date: July 22, 2016 10:00PM
Two old white people owned by banks and Wall Street.
Now there's your party of diversity.



The Phorum Wall keeps us safe from illegal characters and words
The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is the knowledge of one's own ignorance. -Benjamin Franklin
BOYCOTT YOPLAIT [www.noyoplait.com]
[soundcloud.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Steve G.
Date: July 22, 2016 10:48PM
Quote
billb
Two old white people owned by banks and Wall Street.
Now there's your party of diversity.
Yeah bill, Because a woman as president would not represent diversity.
She'd be just like all the other women presidents.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: deckeda
Date: July 22, 2016 11:21PM
This will work. A more left-leaning running mate would not. Likable guy, and not actually controversial. If trade is the Republican's wedge issue here ... well, good luck with that.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: July 23, 2016 12:34AM
I guess Kaine falls into the November category. After listening to the meat puppets discuss this a little, he will supposedly lock up Virginia and having a Democratic governor gives it a slightly better chance that there will be a strong replacement in the Senate. Locking up Virginia means Drumpf must win Florida or the election is over.

The biggest danger is that the safe choice isn't someone that will drive voters to the polls. There is still the possible scenario that a yuge turnout of Drumpf supporters will overwhelm an uninspired millennial and minority turnout.



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: pdq
Date: July 23, 2016 08:46AM
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
I guess Kaine falls into the November category. After listening to the meat puppets discuss this a little, he will supposedly lock up Virginia and having a Democratic governor gives it a slightly better chance that there will be a strong replacement in the Senate. Locking up Virginia means Drumpf must win Florida or the election is over.

The biggest danger is that the safe choice isn't someone that will drive voters to the polls. There is still the possible scenario that a yuge turnout of Drumpf supporters will overwhelm an uninspired millennial and minority turnout.

^ this.

It reeks of "playing it safe". With the possible exception of Virginia, I don't think there will be more than a handful of people that will be persuaded to vote for the ticket that wouldn't before...vs a potentially vast number of, say, Latino first-voters that will probably stay home now.

I dunno- Kaine sounds like a nice enough guy (although he hold some positions contrary to Clinton), and maybe when he gets out there we'll all fall in love with him.

But to me now, it looks like a massive missed opportunity.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: mspace
Date: July 23, 2016 09:13AM
He is the best under the circumstances.

Sherrod Brown would also have been a good choice, but would have been replaced by a republican. Getting the Senate to go Dem is important.

Booker needs a bit more on the resume. Warren will do her best work in the Senate and as a bulldog for Clinton.

I had wanted someone other, too, but after learning more about him, he will be Clinton's "Biden" and will serve well.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: deckeda
Date: July 23, 2016 09:14AM
(Edit: ninja'd, response was to pdq's post.)

Really? Seems Dems need to secure whites at least as much as Latinos in order to beat the guy that ONLY attracts whites. That's not to say minority votes are taken for granted, but Dems do tend to have advantages there without being overt about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2016 09:15AM by deckeda.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: pdq
Date: July 23, 2016 09:26AM
Quote
deckeda
(Edit: ninja'd, response was to pdq's post.)

Really? Seems Dems need to secure whites at least as much as Latinos in order to beat the guy that ONLY attracts whites. That's not to say minority votes are taken for granted, but Dems do tend to have advantages there without being overt about it.

Can you think of a white guy (or a Republican) who is saying "Well, I really don't like Clinton, and I was thinking about voting for Trump (or staying home), but with Kaine on the ticket, they've got my vote"?

Maybe in Virginia.

I just don't get it - the choice could have been stark - the future vs the angry past, in an electorate that (as always) is looking for change. And instead of someone that will get young folks to vote, we get a guy that looks a little like Pence.

Like I said, I don't know Kaine - I hear he's well liked (around Washington). I also hear he's squishy on abortion rights, is a public defender of banks, etc.

On first blush, this seems like a Lieberman pick to me. We know how that turned out.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Acer
Date: July 23, 2016 11:04AM
Winning VPs last 36 years:
Bush: Boring white guy.
Quayle: Boring white guy.
[EDIT - thanks, Lemon] Gore: Boring white guy
Cheney: Boring white guy.
Biden:Boring white guy.

Loosing VPs:
Bentsen: Boring white guy.
Ferraro. Not boring white guy.
Lieberman. Boring white guy, but a Jewish boring white guy with an independent vibe in the Senate.
Palin. Not a boring white guy.

Boring white guy seems the safe bet, especially when the ticket lead is not a boring white guy.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2016 12:48PM by Acer.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Ted King
Date: July 23, 2016 11:15AM
Quote
pdq
Quote
deckeda
(Edit: ninja'd, response was to pdq's post.)

Really? Seems Dems need to secure whites at least as much as Latinos in order to beat the guy that ONLY attracts whites. That's not to say minority votes are taken for granted, but Dems do tend to have advantages there without being overt about it.

Can you think of a white guy (or a Republican) who is saying "Well, I really don't like Clinton, and I was thinking about voting for Trump (or staying home), but with Kaine on the ticket, they've got my vote"?

Maybe in Virginia.

I just don't get it - the choice could have been stark - the future vs the angry past, in an electorate that (as always) is looking for change. And instead of someone that will get young folks to vote, we get a guy that looks a little like Pence.

Like I said, I don't know Kaine - I hear he's well liked (around Washington). I also hear he's squishy on abortion rights, is a public defender of banks, etc.

On first blush, this seems like a Lieberman pick to me. We know how that turned out.

Maybe a little Liebermanish. I think Filliam H. Muffman had it right when he said this was a "November" pick, meaning that it's likely that Clinton decided on Kaine because she feels like she didn't need a running mate that enhanced her prospects with a part of the coalition that was "weak"; instead, she went with a person that she thinks can be a good president if necessary and someone she feels comfortable working with.

I agree with you that the Kaine pick probably wasn't made to shore up Clinton's standing with white working class voters. Clinton will never get the votes of white working class voters who are largely motivated by white tribal "instincts". The white working class voters who aren't motivated primarily by white tribal instincts are, never-the-less, probably generally very much feeling alienated and in an anti-establishment mood. Justifiably or not, a great many of them think that trade agreements have hurt their economic well-being quite substantially. Kaine's record on trade agreements won't help attract them. I just don't see how Kaine helps with rust belt white working class voters and they are THE crucial group that Trump needs to win "big time" to carry enough rust belt states to get a majority of the Electoral College.

That leads me to think that Clinton has assessed that she will have enough strength in her coalitions to win the election - hence the "November" choice of Kaine. If so, her assessment may very well be correct, but if that is her reasoning, my assessment is that she shouldn't be so sanguine. I think she may be underestimating the anti-establishment mood. Trump is going to cast himself as the "change" candidate and Clinton as not only corrupt and crooked but more of the same corrupt and crooked establishment machine. Kaine just reinforces that impression.

I don't think Clinton is going to make much net headway against Trump with white working class rust belters. I think she would be better served doing her utmost to excite the part of what could be her coalition that has traditionally not had a high turn out in elections - young people. Trump may very well get white working class voters to turn out to vote that don't usually vote and I think Clinton's best bet to counteract that is to galvanize young voters to turn out in historically high numbers. Kaine does pretty much nothing in that direction.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2016 11:33AM by Ted King.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 23, 2016 11:20AM
Pappy Bush - Quayle - Gore (your forgot Al!) - Cheney - Biden -

Those guys are so incredibly different from one another that the conclusion I draw is that VP doesn't matter a great deal, at least in terms of the election. The way that the two people work together is very important, we don't want another puppet like W. I think that Joe Biden has been an outstanding VP.

I'm disappointed by the Kaine pick, I agree that it's a missed opportunity. We now have 4 non-Hispanic white people leading the tickets in a nation that is so much more diverse than that.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: deckeda
Date: July 23, 2016 11:25AM
So Kaine can't help bring whites in the rust belt, nor the growing Hispanic bloc.

Beleaguered.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 23, 2016 11:35AM
I recall in the summer of 2000 that I found it impossible to believe that we'd elect George W. Bush. I wasn't super excited about Gore/Lieberman but I was terrified of W.

If you don't want to hear the words "President Donald J Trump" on January 20, 2017, then it's probably a good idea to start doing some volunteering in a swing state.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Ted King
Date: July 23, 2016 11:39AM
Quote
deckeda
So Kaine can't help bring whites in the rust belt, nor the growing Hispanic bloc.

Beleaguered.

Trump is going to get obliterated amongst Hispanics no matter who Clinton chose as VP. He might have gotten somewhat more obliterated if Clinton had chosen Perez but whatever effect the Hispanic vote will have on the Electoral College was probably baked into the cake quite some time ago. That said, I think that though Kaine won't have as much of a salutory effect with Hispanics as Perez, his past with doing work with the Catholic Church in Latin America and his fluent Spanish will probably help with Hispanics some.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 23, 2016 11:46AM
I'm less concerned with how the white person attracts or does not attract non-white voters and more with the fact that the tickets are simply not representational of the nation and again miss the opportunity to diversify leadership voices, something we desperately need.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: deckeda
Date: July 23, 2016 11:49AM
Unless Clinton and/or Kaine actively work against minorities, as Republicans reliably do, I fail to see how they both aren't indeed "representational," even though they are both pasty white. I don't want a Hispanic or any other VP choice up there primarily as a figurehead, for example. That's freaking pandering, unless I misunderstand you.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Dennis S
Date: July 23, 2016 11:51AM
There's a woman on the ticket, for Pete's sake.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: deckeda
Date: July 23, 2016 11:53AM
Quote
Dennis S
There's a woman on the ticket, for Pete's sake.

Sure, but tell that to say, Carly Fiorina or any one of a zillion other women who apparently think strong conservatism is a good idea.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 23, 2016 11:57AM
Quote
deckeda
Unless Clinton and/or Kaine actively work against minorities, as Republicans reliably do, I fail to see how they both aren't indeed "representational," even though they are both pasty white. I don't want a Hispanic or any other VP choice up there primarily as a figurehead, for example. That's freaking pandering, unless I misunderstand you.

Got white privilege?

I think you misunderstand quite a lot.

So non-whites don't need actual leadership roles, the nice white people will take care of everything. Got it.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: deckeda
Date: July 23, 2016 11:58AM
I'm of the opinion that Democrats or liberals who think one bloc of people are best for another will rapidly find themselves in a logical loop of expecting only blacks to vote for a black candidate and so on.

Representation isn't the same as being "of your peers." It's about taking a higher calling, to do the work for others who can't actually be there in an exact form.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 23, 2016 12:01PM
Quote
Dennis S
There's a woman on the ticket, for Pete's sake.

yes, and that's cause for celebration. It's just too bad that she had to make the most safe-vanilla possible choice for VP; I acknowledge the political positives of the choice, which are many.
Kaine has never lost a race and he's popular and won't offend many people.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: deckeda
Date: July 23, 2016 12:01PM
We're talking past each other here, but it's not about privilege for me. It's about listening to what candidates say and do, and judge them ONLY on that. NOT what they look like.

You kinda make it sound as if Obama couldn't represent whites, which is a weird conclusion if so. I can confirm he represents ME a heck of a lot more than Bush did, and Obama and I would never be confused as brothers.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Ted King
Date: July 23, 2016 12:06PM
In my last post I said, "...the Hispanic vote will have on the Electoral College was probably baked into the cake quite some time ago." There is one exception to that that might be quite important - Florida. I don't think it was an accident that Clinton did the VP announcement thing in Florida. If we see a lot of Kaine talking in Spanish to many of the Hispanic communities in Florida, then that may be just enough to slip Florida into the Clinton column in November. Clinton winning Florida would certainly be a big deal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2016 12:08PM by Ted King.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 23, 2016 12:08PM
Quote
deckeda
I'm of the opinion that Democrats or liberals who think one bloc of people are best for another will rapidly find themselves in a logical loop of expecting only blacks to vote for a black candidate and so on.

Representation isn't the same as being "of your peers." It's about taking a higher calling, to do the work for others who can't actually be there in an exact form.

Again you're confusing political strategy with actual representation.

We have yet another election where both national parties assume that only white people are best suited for the top leadership roles in our nation. it's pathetic at this point.

I'm not advocating for people of color in leadership roles because they attract voting blocs. I'm advocating for it because it's morally the right thing for our nation.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: deckeda
Date: July 23, 2016 12:24PM
I'm confused. Obama got nominated, and elected twice, because he represents blacks? I don't vote for him out of some sense of morality. Coulda supported Ben Carson by that logic.

Ask yourself, if the next nominee after Hillary isn't a woman, will you conclude we as a nation don't care about women?

Don't misunderstand. I think it's great to see diversity. And yes it "means" something. But it doesn't guarantee representation.

As for political strategy, I think I've made it clear I naively don't care about it, because in my world people vote for what someone says and does, not what they look like.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Ted King
Date: July 23, 2016 12:40PM
Quote
deckeda
I'm confused. Obama got nominated, and elected twice, because he represents blacks? I don't vote for him out of some sense of morality. Coulda supported Ben Carson by that logic.

Ask yourself, if the next nominee after Hillary isn't a woman, will you conclude we as a nation don't care about women?

Don't misunderstand. I think it's great to see diversity. And yes it "means" something. But it doesn't guarantee representation.

As for political strategy, I think I've made it clear I naively don't care about it, because in my world people vote for what someone says and does, not what they look like.

I could be wrong, but I get the sense that this disagreement started because the word "representational" is ambiguous - where Lemon Drop meant one thing in her use of the word and you meant something else.

Here again is what Lemon Drop said:

Quote

I'm less concerned with how the white person attracts or does not attract non-white voters and more with the fact that the tickets are simply not representational of the nation and again miss the opportunity to diversify leadership voices, something we desperately need.

You replied:

Quote

Unless Clinton and/or Kaine actively work against minorities, as Republicans reliably do, I fail to see how they both aren't indeed "representational," even though they are both pasty white. I don't want a Hispanic or any other VP choice up there primarily as a figurehead, for example. That's freaking pandering, unless I misunderstand you.

Here's the definition for the word "representational":

Quote

1. typical of a class, group, or body of opinion.
"these courses are representative of those taken by most Harvard undergraduates"

*containing typical examples of many or all types.
"a representative sample of young people in the South"

2.(of a legislative or deliberative assembly) consisting of people chosen to act and speak on behalf of a wider group.

I think Lemon Drop is using the term more in the #1. sense of the word and you are using it more in the #2. sense of the word.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 23, 2016 01:18PM
Quote
Ted King
Quote
deckeda
I'm confused. Obama got nominated, and elected twice, because he represents blacks? I don't vote for him out of some sense of morality. Coulda supported Ben Carson by that logic.

Ask yourself, if the next nominee after Hillary isn't a woman, will you conclude we as a nation don't care about women?

Don't misunderstand. I think it's great to see diversity. And yes it "means" something. But it doesn't guarantee representation.

As for political strategy, I think I've made it clear I naively don't care about it, because in my world people vote for what someone says and does, not what they look like.

I could be wrong, but I get the sense that this disagreement started because the word "representational" is ambiguous - where Lemon Drop meant one thing in her use of the word and you meant something else.

Here again is what Lemon Drop said:

Quote

I'm less concerned with how the white person attracts or does not attract non-white voters and more with the fact that the tickets are simply not representational of the nation and again miss the opportunity to diversify leadership voices, something we desperately need.

You replied:

Quote

Unless Clinton and/or Kaine actively work against minorities, as Republicans reliably do, I fail to see how they both aren't indeed "representational," even though they are both pasty white. I don't want a Hispanic or any other VP choice up there primarily as a figurehead, for example. That's freaking pandering, unless I misunderstand you.

Here's the definition for the word "representational":

Quote

1. typical of a class, group, or body of opinion.
"these courses are representative of those taken by most Harvard undergraduates"

*containing typical examples of many or all types.
"a representative sample of young people in the South"

2.(of a legislative or deliberative assembly) consisting of people chosen to act and speak on behalf of a wider group.

I think Lemon Drop is using the term more in the #1. sense of the word and you are using it more in the #2. sense of the word.

I think what deckeda means by "representational" is more policy support, i.e. that Clinton/Kaine are more likely to support policies that benefit people of color than a Trump/Pence ticket, and with that point I am in 100% agreement.

However, the idea that excluding people of color from the top leadership roles in our nation is OK as long as policies lean in a generally positive direction for them smacks of white privilege, something we really need to move past. Having four white people on the top of the tickets is NOT representational of our nation, from a demographic standpoint, and that's too bad.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 23, 2016 01:22PM
Quote
deckeda
I'm confused. Obama got nominated, and elected twice, because he represents blacks? .

Obama's election and re-election were important and historic because he IS black, not because he "represents" anything.

You're talking about political ideology and I'm talking about racial justice and equity for our nation, which are long overdue.

Democrats claim to support equity and anti-racism but it needs to be more than talk.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Dennis S
Date: July 23, 2016 01:54PM
You couldn't get a ticket more representational than this one. One half is a woman and the other half is a white man.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: Ted King
Date: July 23, 2016 02:13PM
Quote
Lemon Drop

I think what deckeda means by "representational" is more policy support, i.e. that Clinton/Kaine are more likely to support policies that benefit people of color than a Trump/Pence ticket, and with that point I am in 100% agreement.

However, the idea that excluding people of color from the top leadership roles in our nation is OK as long as policies lean in a generally positive direction for them smacks of white privilege, something we really need to move past. Having four white people on the top of the tickets is NOT representational of our nation, from a demographic standpoint, and that's too bad.

I think I'm beginning to wrap my head around it, but not really. :-) I still think there's some ambiguity getting in the way, but it's an interesting discussion and I hope the two of you resolve the seeming disagreement.

Here's what I think: if gender, ethnicity, etc. had no bearing what-so-ever on who our elected representatives were, then over time we would statistically see that the gender, ethnicity, etc. of the representatives would come pretty close to being proportional to the number of people in the population that have those characteristics. That is assuming that there is no systemic bias for or against any of those demographic groups.

The history of this country is one of a both gradual and punctuated equalibrium evolution toward systemically eliminating those biases. The country has evolved quite a bit in favor of that goal but there is a LONG way to go to largely achieve it. There are always those who benefit from systemic bias who resist more egalitarianism in choosing representative leadership. Trump and his troops will hopefully become the end of a dead evolutionary limb of such resisters. Losers.

If you value an egalitarian spirit to community then you are going to think that as a society our representative leadership should, at least over time, reflect the demographics of the country. In the sense that what we value is the basis of our moral preferences, then if you value an egalitarian spirit to community, you are going to think that the moral thing to do is to try to extinguish systemic bias in our community systems.

Of course, like most (probably all) ideals, there can be no such thing as perfect egalitarianism - no purging of all systemic biases from community systems. We are different. Most of us kind of like that there are some gender biases in our community systems, for example, even though most of us don't want gender biases in community systems to "hold women back" in their rightful pursuits. The tricky bit is figuring out what systemic biases "hold someone back" and which ones are "innocent" expressions of natural preferences. And that can be a very, very tricky bit indeed.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2016 02:26PM by Ted King.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: pdq
Date: July 23, 2016 04:21PM
One other thought - it seems to me that the single greatest political deficit that the Clinton campaign has in this election is not demographics, or experience, or money...it's enthusiasm. Enthusiasm drives folks to the polls. Enthusiasm will certainly drive most of her opponent's voters to the polls. (Of course, many Republicans are decidedly not enthusiastic about Trump, but most will vote for him anyway, as long as he carries the (R) next to his name on the ballot - it's in their political DNA).

Out of the gate, the Kaine pick does nothing for this deficit. Maybe he will, going forward- I don't know this guy - maybe he's the greatest thing since sliced bread on the stump.

I sure hope so. As I said above, he feels a lot like Lieberman to me.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: fauch
Date: July 23, 2016 04:29PM
Who?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: It's Kaine.
Posted by: deckeda
Date: July 23, 2016 10:09PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
deckeda
I'm confused. Obama got nominated, and elected twice, because he represents blacks? .

Obama's election and re-election were important and historic because he IS black, not because he "represents" anything.

Those aren't mutually exclusive occurrences. Yes, I agree his presidency is historic. I also think he represented me-- i.e. my desires. Why else would I have voted for him ... because I'd set aside all "white" desires just to help my black countrymen? Nope, I voted for purely selfish reasons, I liked him better, for ME. smiling smiley

Quote
Lemon Drop
You're talking about political ideology and I'm talking about racial justice and equity for our nation, which are long overdue.

Democrats claim to support equity and anti-racism but it needs to be more than talk.

That's great but putting a black (for example) in office won't fix that. Doesn't hurt, but again consider Carson. How ready was he to help his fellow blacks? He couldn't even get what the freakin' Pyramids were about.

Blacks and Hispanics aren't the only ones needing racial justice here. Trouble is, there are only so many job openings! I'm not saying whites are necessarily burdened with "fixing everything" for everyone else (your white privilege claim). What I am saying is that if, for example, a Hispanic held office but acted with a black's interests 100%, by your description it wouldn't, couldn't ever be enough. To that, I disagree.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 117
Record Number of Users: 52 on November 20, 2014
Record Number of Guests: 847 on February 04, 2015