• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Presidential Primaries 2016

Marco Rubio got third place in AZ, even though he dropped out. I imagine that most of those votes were from absentee ballots that were mailed in before he dropped out. I imagine that 4th place Kasich isn't too happy about that.
 
Last edited:
For your viewing pleasure...

Next Tuesday, March 29

CNN To Host Town Hall with Final Three Republican Presidential Candidates Live from Wisconsin on Tuesday March 29
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2...ates-live-from-wisconsin-on-tuesday-march-29/

"The event will air from 8-11pmET on CNN, CNN International and CNN en Espanol, and will be live-streamed online and across mobile devices via CNNgo."

I imagine that the folks at Fox are fuming!
 
So my precinct had more Clinton supporters than Sanders but each got 1 delegate due to rounding in order to split 2 delegates. There were probably more Sanders supporters in the room (about 10 precincts meet in the same caucus at different tables).

Only one person went from undecided to a candidate and everyone else stayed with their original pick. She changed to Clinton. Yay!

Arguments for Sanders were mostly for ideological reasons including just having a larger say on the platform even if Clinton was going to win the nomination. One guy was convinced Clinton was a liar and corrupt.

Votes for Clinton included believing it was time for a woman to clean up the mess men made of things and that she could get more done within the system. I brought up the reason the Machinists Union was pro-Clinton here and noted that some corporations translate into jobs, they aren't all just rich people's benefit.

More than a few people were worried Sanders could lose to Trump, someone brought up the usual claim Sanders does better against Trump than Clinton and I brought up the fact he has not been subject to the negative campaigning yet but Sanders supporters don't understand the effect of a negative campaign that your taxes are going to go up tremendously.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the update. Caucuses seem almost exotic to me, and I like to read and/or hear about them.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So my precinct had more Clinton supporters than Sanders but each got 1 delegate due to rounding in order to split 2 delegates. There were probably more Sanders supporters in the room (about 10 precincts meet in the same caucus at different tables).

Only one person went from undecided to a candidate and everyone else stayed with their original pick. She changed to Clinton. Yay!

Arguments for Sanders were mostly for ideological reasons including just having a larger say on the platform even if Clinton was going to win the nomination. One guy was convinced Clinton was a liar and corrupt.

Votes for Clinton included believing it was time for a woman to clean up the mess men made of things and that she could get more done within the system...
Click to expand...


It looks like Hillary's campaign message -- Pantsuits Rule -- failed to resonate. Go figure!
 
Apparently HI had all sorts of issues mostly related to crowded caucuses and running out of ballots. So that suggests Sanders will do well. But we still have no reports.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Votes for Clinton included believing it was time for a woman to clean up the mess men made of things and that she could get more done within the system.
Click to expand...

Now see... that's one of the biggest reasons I despise the Clinton campaign. I'm not against feminism, but it should be about the issues, not about "vote for her because she's female." Can anybody deny that Sanders is more "feminist" than Fiorina? Okay then. The charge of "sexism" is also brought up repeatedly when it doesn't even remotely apply. She's has quite clearly been playing the proverbial "card" throughout this campaign, and I find it disgusting.

Yes, women still do have a little way to go with gender role issues. I realize that. I'm not anti-feminist. I just don't think it has anything to do with which sex you should vote for in a presidential campaign. She isn't even a "strong" feminist -- she rode to her current position on her husband's coattails.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Now see... that's one of the biggest reasons I despise the Clinton campaign. I'm not against feminism, but it should be about the issues, not about "vote for her because she's female." Can anybody deny that Sanders is more "feminist" than Fiorina? Okay then. The charge of "sexism" is also brought up repeatedly when it doesn't even remotely apply. She's has quite clearly been playing the proverbial "card" throughout this campaign, and I find it disgusting.
Click to expand...

You resent the fact being a woman is one of many reasons to vote for Clinton? Tough titties, get over it.

I doubt you could find a single person voting for Clinton who would have voted for Fiorina which should prove to you it's not simply voting for a woman, it's voting for this woman.

And yes, sexism is plenty evident from Chris Matthews complaining Clinton was shrill and didn't need to yell (sheesh Sanders yells at every rally) to the idiots in this forum who sought the need to complain about Clinton's pantsuits.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
You resent the fact being a woman is one of many reasons to vote for Clinton?

I doubt you could find a single person voting for Clinton would have voted for Fiorina which should prove to you it's not simply voting for a woman, it's voting for this woman.

And yes, sexism is plenty evident from Chris Matthews complaining Clinton was shrill and didn't need to yell (sheesh Sanders yells at every rally) to the idiots in this forum who sought the need to complain about Clinton's pantsuits.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but if I said that I voted for Sanders because he's a man, that'd be a sexist, wouldn't it? The same conditions apply.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And yes, sexism is plenty evident from Chris Matthews complaining Clinton was shrill and didn't need to yell (sheesh Sanders yells at every rally) to the idiots in this forum who sought the need to complain about Clinton's pantsuits.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I saw the clip. It had nothing to do with her being a woman. What she was saying and how she said it came off as awkward as HELL. A woman can raise her voice just fine without having that effect. They do it all the damn time without being criticized about it.

Think cheerleaders. Do we criticize them for yelling? NO, we don't. It had nothing to do with her being a woman and everything to do with her actual voice in a particular circumstance. Now consider also what was said about Howard Dean in 2004. Does it match up? Well yes, it does. Perfectly.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Excuse me, but if I said that I voted for Sanders because he's a man, that'd be a sexist, wouldn't it? The same conditions apply.
Click to expand...
Yes it would be sexist because you would be saying you were voting against a woman because she was a woman not that you were voting for a man.

I see this may be a difficult concept for you (and no doubt a bunch of other people) but there is a difference.

Think about it for a minute. Wanting to see a woman POTUS is not saying you don't want to see a man POTUS because we've had nothing but men POTUSes since the country was founded.

But wanting to see a man POTUS is indeed saying you don't want to see a woman POTUS.

Take your time, let it sink in, make an effort to understand the difference, I'll wait for you to figure out why you are proposing a false equivalence.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes it would be sexist because you would be saying you were voting against a woman because she was a woman not that you were voting for a man.

I see this may be a difficult concept for you (and no doubt a bunch of other people) but there is a difference.

Think about it for a minute. Wanting to see a woman POTUS is not saying you don't want to see a man POTUS because we've had nothing but men POTUSes since the country was founded.

But wanting to see a man POTUS is indeed saying you don't want to see a woman POTUS.

Take your time, let it sink in, make an effort to understand the difference, I'll wait for you to figure out why you are proposing a false equivalence.
Click to expand...

As said elsewhere, I'm perfectly fine with having a woman president. I think it's actually something that needs to happen eventually. I just don't think Hillary is the one. I also don't think she should get the job solely because of her gender and the fact that she keeps reminding us.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Sorry, but I saw the clip. It had nothing to do with her being a woman. What she was saying and how she said it came off as awkward as HELL. A woman can raise her voice just fine without having that effect. They do it all the damn time without being criticized about it.

Think cheerleaders. Do we criticize them for yelling? NO, we don't. It had nothing to do with her being a woman and everything to do with her actual voice in a particular circumstance. Now consider also what was said about Howard Dean in 2004. Does it match up? Well yes, it does. Perfectly.
Click to expand...
No, just no.

That Dean was criticized and maybe even lost the election for his rebel yell had absolutely zero to do with the actual yell and everything to do with an effective negative campaign to make said yell look like a bad thing. And Dean did not have an effective comeback to the negative campaign. It was one of the most unfortunate and ridiculous reasons to lose a campaign to date.

Think about it. There was nothing wrong or bad with his exuberant yell. Nada, nothing. The supposed gaffe was completely and effectively contrived.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
No, just no.

That Dean was criticized and maybe even lost the election for his rebel yell had absolutely zero to do with the actual yell and everything to do with an effective negative campaign to make said yell look like a bad thing. And Dean did not have an effective comeback to the negative campaign. It was one of the most unfortunate and ridiculous reasons to lose a campaign to date.

Think about it. There was nothing wrong or bad with his exuberant yell. Nada, nothing. The supposed gaffe was completely contrived.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, but it wasn't because he was a woman that he was treated that way, now was it? Do you want equality or do you want someone to treat you with kid gloves to avoid being called a sexist? Which is it?
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
As said elsewhere, I'm perfectly fine with having a woman president. I think it's actually something that needs to happen eventually. I just don't think Hillary is the one. I also don't think she should get the job solely because of her gender and the fact that she keeps reminding us.
Click to expand...
So why do you find fault then that being a woman is one of many criteria people are using to decide to vote for Clinton?

Suppose someone found the positives and negatives about Clinton and Sanders were a wash. Why shouldn't being the first woman POTUS be the one thing that pushed the decision in Clinton's direction?

Is it because she's not your choice? Excuse me if I think being the first woman POTUS is one of many reasons to vote for Clinton.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So why do you find fault then that being a woman is one of many criteria people are using to decide to vote for Clinton?
Click to expand...

That's not even entirely what I'm saying. Mostly, I'm objecting to her campaign being designed to take advantage of that. If it's a personal decision, that's perfectly dandy. I just don't think the candidate herself needs to resort to it.
 
Manopolus said:
That's not even entirely what I'm saying. Mostly, I'm objecting to her campaign being designed to take advantage of that. If it's a personal decision, that's perfectly dandy. I just don't think the candidate herself needs to resort to it.
Click to expand...
And you base that on what? A couple gaffes by Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom