How are you feeling about the state of American democracy?

[marshwiggle]

Clinton is principled, experienced, and savvy.

So one part of that statement needs re-consideration.

M.

I believe you have to go back to 1956 to find someone who lost an election who was brought back as the candidate for a subsequent one. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing again and expecting a different result.

Nixon lost in 1960, and then won in1968.

I stand corrected. At any rate, you basically have to answer the following question: "What slice of voters who chose Trump (or stayed home, I suppose), in 2016 who would now vote for Clinton?"

I can't come up with any demographic for that. (Unless geographical voting patterns change, then even the whole electoral college thing will work the same way it did then as well.)

[Ruralguy]

The most relevant point of historical trivia would be "When was the last time that a president who lost re-election then came back to win it in the next election?  I think the answer is Grover Cleveland.  He was President  until the late 1880's , then he lost the next election, then he won the next one after that. So, Trump would have to do something that happened only one other time, 130 years ago.  And a Republican has never done it (if that matters!). Cleveland won the popular vote all three times. If Trump pulls it off, it would likely be with three popular vote losses in a row.

Though I agree that Clinton wouldn't really bring anybody in who isn't inclined to vote for her already, that might be enough, especially if people feel the same regarding Trump. 

[mahagonny]

People who voted for Trump and Hillary in 2016 are dead or in dementia by now. New voters coming along. It could be interesting. I suspect young voters are not going to be excited about Hillary, which would be an advantage for Trump. If she starts talking about the 'Glass Ceiling' (yawn...they had Margaret Thatcher in 1979) and 'the year of the woman' Trump has it made.

[dismalist]

Found this as a comment on another blog:

1824, 1872, 1960, 2000, 2004, 2016. Questioning election results is a national pastime, and maybe sometimes the allegations even have merit, but now it's a grave threat to our fragile democracy.

[jimbogumbo]

Clinton is principled, experienced, and savvy.

So one part of that statement needs re-consideration.

M.

I believe you have to go back to 1956 to find someone who lost an election who was brought back as the candidate for a subsequent one. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing again and expecting a different result.

Nixon lost in 1960, and then won in1968.

I stand corrected. At any rate, you basically have to answer the following question: "What slice of voters who chose Trump (or stayed home, I suppose), in 2016 who would now vote for Clinton?"

I can't come up with any demographic for that. (Unless geographical voting patterns change, then even the whole electoral college thing will work the same way it did then as well.)

I've got no clue. Maybe a "who do you fear more as President" question or a "who do you loathe more" question. mamselle is absolutely correct that exactly one of them is capable of governing without craziness. However, as long as Evangelicals fear her, are entranced by him or strike a Devil's bargain for the SC I don't think she can win.

[mahagonny]

I've got no clue. Maybe a "who do you fear more as President" question or a "who do you loathe more" question. mamselle is absolutely correct that exactly one of them is capable of governing without craziness. However, as long as Evangelicals fear her, are entranced by him or strike a Devil's bargain for the SC I don't think she can win.

Right now, with democrats and their skewed priorities, is craziness. Those of us who are not set for life financially have reason to worry about accelerating inflation, among other things.

[dismalist]

When I consider American political commentary, I eventually hark back to what was described in La Dolce Vita [1960] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053779/

Sad, sad, sad. Farce. It's not even wrong.

[Ruralguy]

I thought Indira broke the glass ceiling in 1966, and then Golda in 1969. Though, of interest, neither country has had a second woman as PM (though Israel came close a few years back).

[mahagonny]

I thought Indira broke the glass ceiling in 1966, and then Golda in 1969. Though, of interest, neither country has had a second woman as PM (though Israel came close a few years back).

My opinion (obviously)
Thinking that the UK needs to have another woman head-of-state, and now, would be another trite 'feminist' idea. All they need is to have the right person for the job with the right ideas and leadership skill, which Thatcher and many others believed she was, and that they need urgently. It's the nation that is important. The folly of thinking it's important to break the 'glass-ceiling' is what gave the democrats their newest self-contructed political liability, Kamala Harris. Explained: https://unherd.com/2022/01/kamala-harris-was-set-up-to-fail/

[dismalist]

I thought Indira broke the glass ceiling in 1966, and then Golda in 1969. Though, of interest, neither country has had a second woman as PM (though Israel came close a few years back).

My opinion (obviously)
Thinking that the UK needs to have another woman head-of-state, and now, would be another trite 'feminist' idea. All they need is to have the right person for the job with the right ideas and leadership skill, which Thatcher and many others believed she was, and that they need urgently. It's the nation that is important. The folly of thinking it's important to break the 'glass-ceiling' is what gave the democrats their newest self-contructed political liability, Kamala Harris. Explained: https://unherd.com/2022/01/kamala-harris-was-set-up-to-fail/

Margaret was Minister of Education in the Heath cabinet. She did not want to cancel free school milk, though she did [Thatcher, thatcher, milk snatcher], taking a hit for the team, which was all male. Later, Ted Heath said: Margaret is the only cabinet member who has balls!

A Soviet military magazine invented the sobriquet "The Iron Lady" for her, which she gladly accepted.

She broke ceilings by herself.

[nebo113]

Mahog wrong again:  People who voted for Trump and Hillary in 2016 are dead or in dementia by now.  And insufferably, deliberately offensive, insulting many folks on The Fora who voted for either T or H in 2016 and who are neither dead nor suffering from dementia.

Wonder why Mahog has this need to name call, verbally abuse, use ad hominems....perhasps because s/he/it has so little else.....

[mahagonny]

Fewer people than ever trusting the news media is a concerning thing. It's a bad thing that they don't have news they believe they can trust, but it would be a worse thing if they still trusted news that they shouldn't. One example is the high number of editorials condemning Sens. Manchin and Sinema recently for breaking ranks with the democrats, usually found in outlets with a decided liberal slant. But there is no critical mass of voters who agree with the democrats on either the question of the filibuster or the need for nationalizing voting.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017e-4c41-dbc8-a1ff-7d6105130000

[mamselle]

Mahog wrong again:  People who voted for Trump and Hillary in 2016 are dead or in dementia by now.  And insufferably, deliberately offensive, insulting many folks on The Fora who voted for either T or H in 2016 and who are neither dead nor suffering from dementia.

Wonder why Mahog has this need to name call, verbally abuse, use ad hominems....perhaps because s/he/it has so little else.....

Glad you pointed this out.

I was going to, but I had to prep a theory class, revise an article manuscript for submission, and get a conference paper abstract (due today, it's in wrap-up phase, now) started.

Guess I'm too slow, somnolent, and decrepit as an active independent scholar and teacher to make reasoned political choices.

That must be it...

M.

[mahagonny]

Mahog wrong again:  People who voted for Trump and Hillary in 2016 are dead or in dementia by now.  And insufferably, deliberately offensive, insulting many folks on The Fora who voted for either T or H in 2016 and who are neither dead nor suffering from dementia.

Wonder why Mahog has this need to name call, verbally abuse, use ad hominems....perhaps because s/he/it has so little else.....

Glad you pointed this out.

I was going to, but I had to prep a theory class, revise an article manuscript for submission, and get a conference paper abstract (due today, it's in wrap-up phase, now) started.

Guess I'm too slow, somnolent, and decrepit as an active independent scholar and teacher to make reasoned political choices.

That must be it...

M.

No, My meaning was misconstrued. I explained on the other thread.

Nebo occasionally stalks me with these silly accusations. Last time it was outrage over the phrase 'the blacks.' Which I don't say any more. However, 'people of color' takes longer to type.
ETA: Can you say 'African Americans' any more? I think the jury is still out. Of course, I am posing the question to some who want us to use the term 'Latinx' which the group themselves dislikes.

[ciao_yall]

Hm. Was talking about this with a few friends the other day.

On the one hand we haven't rounded up all people of a certain national descent, taken their property and sent them to internment camps.

But we do "other" another group of people by not making it possible for them to immigrate "legally," and deport them from time to time. Or separate them from their children and then lose the paperwork.

We don't have regular lynching parties or openly segregated neighborhoods, schools, and businesses.

But we do deny schooling, parks, and preschools, then send young people on the cradle-to-prison pipeline where they are locked away; or have "stand your ground" laws where it's okay to shoot and kill a stranger who someone thinks is trespassing.

We have desegregated our schools, but also got rid of free/low cost college educations for those who don't have family money to pay tuition. So these young people start out life under a mountain of debt.

We don't commit violence against workers demanding their rights. We do ship jobs to China where people live away from their families in dorms, with no privacy, making cheap products.

So have we made progress? Or shifted one set of wrongs into a new set of wrongs. Are we just more civilized about how we harm people?