Capstone shmapstone
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html
Hillary Clinton’s older feminist supporters have a message for young women who are not backing her candidacy: Shame on you.
Women were expected to help power Mrs. Clinton to the Democratic nomination, but as she struggles to overcome a tough challenge from Senator Bernie Sanders, her support among them has been surprisingly shaky. Young women, in particular, have been drawn to the septuagenarian socialist from Vermont, and the dynamic has disappointed feminists who dreamed of Mrs. Clinton’s election as a capstone to the movement.
Oh just stop that. It’s complete bullshit. One, just being a woman is not enough, to put it mildly. Two, capstone to the movement my ass. Clinton is the one woman who does not get to treat her political standing as a feminist victory, because of the way her husband’s work helped her get there. I’m sorry but that’s the reality. She’s leveraging her family name to get power; she’s using her husband’s presidency as a jumping-off point. That’s not a feminist act. I’m not saying it’s an anti-feminist act, and I think she’s highly qualified for the job, but it’s just ludicrous to treat her candidacy as an inspiring feminist victory. If she’d done it without the husband-boost it would be, but she didn’t, so it isn’t.
Two feminist icons of Mrs. Clinton’s generation made their frustration known over the weekend, calling on young women who view Mr. Sanders as their candidate to essentially grow up and get with the program.
While introducing Mrs. Clinton at a rally in New Hampshire on Saturday, Madeleine Albright, the first female secretary of state, talked about the importance of electing the first female president. In a dig at the “revolution” that Mr. Sanders often speaks of, she said that the first female commander in chief would be a true revolution. And she scolded any woman who felt otherwise.
But that revolution would be weakened by the fact that she did it as a wife.
I would think that even if I were a passionate fan, which I’m not, because both Clintons are just way too corporate and conservative for me. I would wish someone other than a wife had done it no matter what Clinton was like.
I agree totally. I’m not going to vote for Hillary Clinton just because older feminists say so. I”m an ‘older feminist’ but I call this shameless pandering. These kinds of tactics will offend a rising generation of young people (not just women) and alienate them from learning the history of women’s struggles for equal treatment.
My wife’s niece, who is nominally a Republican, plans to travel to NH (where she has residency) on Tuesday to cast a vote for…Sanders. I texted her and urged her to vote for Clinton.
I don’t like the Goldman Sachs money, and I really didn’t like the Iraq war vote, but Sanders may be unelectable. From http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/electability-2
See also http://www.vox.com/2016/2/5/10923304/bernie-sanders-general-election
Well… President Eleanor Roosevelt would have been such an amazing victory, I wouldn’t have cared that she was FDR’s widow… but that would be alternative history.
And a really good start to a novel…
Steven– Krugman’s usually not wrong, but the fact a registered Republican is fired up with excitement for a Democratic nominee seems to make it worth questioning his judgement here. Especially since elections are not simply economic markets.
Krugman continues
#2
Sure, if you look to the political ‘scientists’ then he is unelectable. These are the same people that thought the Trump campaign would fizzle early, but I’m sure they’re right this time.
Snark aside, I truly am sick of the notion that a person should vote on the basis of that ephemeral quality known as ‘electability.’ This silly notion essentially means that a person should wait and see who polls well and then vote for that person on the basis that they are more likely to win, rather than looking to values. It leads directly to people voting for the same old shit simply because the same old shit is highly electable… because it keeps getting elected… because people keep voting for the most electable… which is essentially the same old ET FUCKING CETERA.
What we see time and time again is people compromising on their values because the
establishmentpundit class continually value electability as a serious political criterion. Instead, vote for your values in the primary, and vote for ‘least bad’ in the general.Dammit, I’m so tired of repeating the following point that I delayed mentioning it above, and the forgot it altogether:
The surest way to promote progressive values in politics is to vote for them. Compromise stifles progression.
I don’t believe for a minute that older feminists, in general, ARE saying so! And exactly how is electing a woman a progressive revolution in itself, regardless of her policy ideas? If you believe that, I have one word for you. Thatcher.
Steven, thanks for posting that. Very interesting.
The experts make the point that polls now are simply not predictive; it’s still too early. And while it isn’t explicitly stated in the Vox article, they seem to be assuming Rubio will get the Republican nomination.
Still, I think Samantha has a point. Experts aren’t always quick to pick up on groundswell changes. Nobody thought Trump would last this long, Cruz is widely despised by his own party–and there they both are, still at the top of the polls. Neither of them is “electable,” so if one of them gets the nom and goes against Sanders, somebody unelectable is going to be our next POTUS.
If Rubio gets the nom–and he probably will, but a girl can dream–time enough to look coldly and critically at the numbers.* Until then, go Bernie.
* Yes, Virginia. You’re a political minority voting in a country with a First Past the Post electoral system. The math matters.
I wish to quietly endorse this sentiment.
It’s a shame there isn’t a hell for Madeleine Albright to go to.
The overt misogyny of the Clintonites is what irritates here: women are disobedient hussies who should be punished severely.
These are shit people. Feel the Bern.
We had a similar situation in the UK. When Corbyn emerged as the front -runner, feminist commentators used exactly the same arguments to try to get young women behind one of the female candidates. It failed. I think something that many older, more established people can’t seem to intuitively grasp is how much worse prospects for young people today are.
Most of us are thousands of pounds in debt, with no jobs or insecure casual jobs with wages that barely cover the travel costs. The government’s austerity measures have hit young people and women particularly hard. Housing benefits and unemployment benefits are going to be scrapped or curtailed for under 25s, and child benefits are going to be limited, but it only for women starting to have children now. We can’t afford to live once these changes come in. Rates of mental illness are increasing – about a third of my generation now have some form of mental illness, and mental health care is being slashed. and there is no sign of things getting better, no one likes thinking about the future because we can’t see anything good in it.
In the leadership elections both female candidates were pro-austerity, they said they would carry on with what the Tories started. So when commentators start saying you have to vote for the female candidate or that the left wing candidate is unelectable, pick one of the ‘centrists’, no one listens. Being able to vote for a female candidate on the basis that she is a woman is a luxury you can have if you don’t depend on the services she has pledged to cut. And we don’t really care if she was more electable because with her politics it wouldn’t matter, as long as they’re pro austerity we are screwed whether Labour or the Tories get in.
I don’t know what it’s like for young women in the US but if it’s anything like it is here, appeals to feminism and electability aren’t going to work, it will just turn people away from feminism and from mainstream politics. There’s also the danger that you turn people away from the Democrats completely. Over here, among many young people, and all generations in Scotland, the Labour-Right have become as hated as the Tories. If Corbyn gets overthrown and replaced with an ‘electable’ right winger, young people aren’t going to rally around his replacement, they’re just not going to vote. There’s a danger that using these tactics young voters will end up as anti-Clinton or Democrat as they are against the Republicans.
Sanders is most certainly electable. He did a wonderful job as mayor of Burlington as well as senator for Vermont. I’ve watched numerous interviews he’d given on Vermont ETV and the guy really is impressive. He’s VERY down to earth ( absolutely NOT Jeremy Corbyn) is articulate and has sound ideas. That Sanders, an urban Jew from New York, could insert himself so seamlessly into the rural plaid shirts ‘n guns crowd in Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom and win their approval year after year is itself an astounding accomplishment.
Young women aren’t flocking to the guy because that’s where the boys are. They’re attracted to Sanders because he’s intelligent, passionate and energetic …precisely the qualities so many of these young women possess.
Bernie inspires, Hillary tires
[…] a comment by Nell on Capstone […]
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944.71555.144310995587370/1118618738156586/?type=3&theater
I’ve seen a number of polls that do matchups of each Democratic candidate vs. each Republican candidate. The ones I’ve seen all show Sanders winning against the Republicans, while with Clinton, it’s a mix, and when she does win, it’s closer. That’s why I say he’s more electable. Not my gut. Poll results.
I think it’s important to draw a distinction between Albright and Steinem, on this point.
Albright’s statement is broader than it first appears–after all, if a woman feels that a Sanders presidency would be just as good for women as a Clinton administration (or even better, based on the fact that women, like PoCs, are at the bottom of the economic trough), then she would be justified in voting for Bernie. So while Albright’s conclusion obviously differs, her premise only condemns women who do not put women as a class in the forefront of their political calculus, not those who disagree with her on a particular race.
Steinem’s comments, OTOH… Ugh. As the uncle of two politically aware nieces (the third honestly couldn’t care less about politics), both of whom are Sanders supporters, I can say with no small sincerity and certainty that “where the boys are” played no part whatsoever in their decisions. Her notpology was also pretty irritating.
On electability in the general election: Obviously there are the people who will vote for either Democratic candidate. Outside of this group – Sanders has more support among independents. Clinton might be able to draw support of some of the more centrist Republicans if the Republican candidate is Trump or Cruz (although Rubio is almost as right-wing as Cruz, I don’t think centrist republican would prefer Clinton over him, but this is merely a guess). There are Sanders supporters who might sit out, or vote for the Green Party candidate if Clinton is nominated. I have no idea if there is a block of Clinton supporters who might sit out or even vote for the Republican nominee if Sanders is nominated.
If Corbyn gets overthrown and replaced with an ‘electable’ right winger, young people aren’t going to rally around his replacement, they’re just not going to vote.
They are not going to vote anyway. They will enjoy the party and then stay at home on election day as always, leaving us with a Tory government. Again. That’s what Corbynism means: permanent rule by an invigorated Conservative party. Thanks kids!
Pinkeen #19:
Pessimism like that doesn’t help.
Corbyn was 200/1 to get the Labour leadership; he won easily.
When the first polls were taken in Iowa twelve months ago, Bernie Sanders had 7% support, Clinton 68%. He lost, but by 49.9% to 49.6%.
POINT: Things change. Assume nothing.