I don't know if it's because he's misquoting the stat or what, but I do think it's interesting that it's that 94% would be more like to *vote* and not more like to *vote and vote for the woman* although I guess that's the conclusion we're supposed to draw.

Maybe though, it's more that if more women ran for office that would reflect a changing climate in our country about attitudes towards woman in power, which in turn would make people more interested in the political process because it would seem like change was actually occurring rather than the same old, same old.

Not sure that made sense. Sorry.

As for the rest of it, holy crap are they really that stupid or are they just pretending? Carlson, you ever stop to think why you don't remark on a dude being on the ballot? Maybe because there are usually only men on the ballot?

I'd love to some data on that statistic, because it sounds pretty implausible to me.

Fuckers like Tucker (hey, it rhymes!) don't even realize that it's a privilege to ALWAYS see your sex represented in government.
They truly see themselves as "normal" people while women, people of color, gays, etc., are weird aberrations who don't deserve consideration.

secondhandsally - makes perfect sense - that's exactly what I thought reading that.

and for all that Tucker claims not to notice that men are on the ballot, he and his ilk certainly have noticed that Hillary's a woman (and has a supposedly weird laugh).

Carlson's implication seems to be that it's not only foolish, but sexist of women to be more inclined to vote when a woman is on the ballot.

But why should this be surprising? Whether gender is real or a construct, the fact is that in social practice, women are frequently similarly situated to other women, hence at least some of the interests of women are likely to be aligned with the interests of other women. This notion is not novel; it's called representation. It's basic to our democracy, at least in theory.

Would he have a similar response to a poll showing that Catholics would be more likely to vote if a Catholic were on the ballot, or that Kansans would be more likely to vote if there were a Kansan presidential candidate? I'm guessing not.

Lack of a bowtie doesn't make Tucker look any less foolish. First off, being more likely to vote doesn't mean you're more likely to vote for a particular candidate. And this notion that minority voters are simple-minded who vote on the "hey-they-look-like-me" principle bothers the shit out of me. Women have political opinions. Women care about the glass ceiling, because that phenomenon is unique to women. Just because Clinton is running on a basis of gender equity doesn't mean she's running as a woman. Every one of the presidential candidates could (and should) run on such a platform.

ITA with the other posters. I LOVE how it doesn't even cross his mind that if he lived in an alternate universe where only women ran for office, and the one day there was a man on the ballot, that he might also be inclined to vote for someone of his own gender. How on earth is he so ridiculously stupid?

Men never had to say "I think I'll vote for him because he has a dick" because they've never ever not had a person with a dick run. These men are so paranoid they have to be this tacky and attack women voters and Hillary just because they can't come up with something real...I dunno, say policy, to talk about? They need to get a life.

So this 94% seemed interesting as well. Where did he get it? So I looked and found this: in '04, 54% of voters were women. Her campaign says she could "boost that majority by another point or two"...read it here:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/15/clintons_team_says_women_will_carry_win/

I do, have to say that I loooove this quote: "We are talking about electing someone from the group that is the majority of voters. That's more powerful than people realize."

I am not even gonna go into a Carlson rant and his attempt to make us feel stupid.

Anyways, I also went to the campaign site since it is their poll...
This is the memo:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3713
No mention of how many were polled, etc. but I have to agree that just because 94% of us (yeahh!) said we'd vote doesn't mean we'll all vote for her.

Seems to me like this post may have been more aptly titled "Tucker Carson is an ass and other shocking news."

It really, really, really pains me to slightly agree with Tucker, who is usually a windbag dumbass...but I have a hard time giving any women credit who will vote for Hillary based solely on her gender. Would you really vote for another triangulator who voted for both the Iraq war resolution, the Kyl-Lieberman "let's start another war" amendment, authored a flag burning bill, who supports torture, who supports domestic spying, etc. Anyone out there that would vote for a man that supported all of these issues?

I would love this country to have a woman president. It will help this country immensely to get over our issues with women in power. That women would be a role model for every little girl born in this country, showing them the the glass ceiling no longer can be found at 1600 Pennsylvania. But Hilary? Really?

"We are talking about electing someone from the group that is the majority of voters. That's more powerful than people realize."

Well, yes. That's...democracy.

Equity, I have yet to see a candidate of any type who isn't an equivocating, treacherous, unreliable, sell-out, flag-waving bastard. I'm certainly not going to hold Hillary Clinton to a higher standard because she's a woman.

EFBG, who said they'd vote specifically for Clinton? Anyone? Bueller? The statistic doesn't even say or imply that either. In fact, it doesn't mention Clinton at all.

I know that the Democratic party represents me at this time. There is no Republican out there who makes me question this even a little bit. If she's the democratic candidate, that's who I'll vote for.
I absolutely love the term Vaginal American. It makes clear our "otherness".

but I have a hard time giving any women credit who will vote for Hillary based solely on her gender.

Why are you even bringing this up? Nobody here said they were going to vote for Hillary based solely on her gender. I mean, I could come into this thread and start talking about how I think Rod Stewart sings like he's got a turd stuck in his throat, but that's not what we're talking about, is it?

Doesn't the hyphenated-American construction use the pre-hyphen word to indicate origin? African-American, Italian-American, Irish-American, etc.

Based on this, the real division in this country is between Vaginal-Americans and Transabdominal-Americans.

"this notion that minority voters are simple-minded who vote on the "hey-they-look-like-me" principle bothers the shit out of me."

I remember that line of reasoning during the 2006 Gubenetorial elections in Ohio--conservatives were saying that black people would vote for Kenneth Blackwell just because he was black--when he was a conservative who wouldn't be doing anything FOR African-American advancement. Luckily, they were wrong, and Ted Strickland won.

I remember that line of reasoning during the 2006 Gubenetorial elections in Ohio--conservatives were saying that black people would vote for Kenneth Blackwell just because he was black--when he was a conservative who wouldn't be doing anything FOR African-American advancement. Luckily, they were wrong, and Ted Strickland won.

Living in Cincinnati, I got to hear that assumption quite a few times. Apparently, the hope was that the African-American population would forget that Blackwell's claim to fame was the massive disenfranchisement of African-American Ohioan voters in 2004. Considering how widely reviled Blackwell was (and still is), it's hard to fathom the amount of denial one would have to be in to make that assumption.

WOW. Can anyone seriously be that idiotic? Does he not realize that having a woman on the ballot would get more women to vote because WE'VE NEVER HAD A WOMAN ON THE BALLOT? And maybe she would actually take women's issues seriously because she is a woman? It's completely different than a man voting for a man because 1) it's ALWAYS men running in both parties 2) there's been nothing but male candidates. But I guess the patriarchy has just become like water to a fish for some people.

What a novel idea! (/sarcasm) Something resembling representative democracy might boost the belief that this system actually IS a representative democracy and thus our faith in the system over all.

The fact that HC's vagina is even a topic of discussion, other than being utterly disgusting and downright creepy, is a sign of how far we HAVEN'T come in terms of gender equality. Can anyone imagine a world where Sam Brownback's testicles were a topic of discussion (and public vomitting was frowned upon)? No? Than STFU, n00b. You have no idea your privilage.

And...correct me if I'm wrong...but aren't the majority of Americans "Vaginal-Americans?" It's still about 51 to 49 population-wise, right? We really should just change our name to the United States of Vagina.

I am very confused by the "She is not running as a woman" statement. I understand that this is not her platform, but the statement makes no sense. Is she hoping no one will notice? Is she hoping if she just ignores it, everyone will forget? That, to me, feels like a slap in a face. I will not feel that our government is "truly representative" until a woman doesn't have to pretend that her gender isn't noticed by everyone to get in, also not until many other groups who are not represented are, and when I see that the "balancing powers" do not block her just because she is a woman. If HC or any other woman or minority were in office, they would have to still fight much harder than your average republican white guy to get things done. The measure, for me, is more than just can a woman get elected. There is so much more that needs to be done.

I am very confused by the "She is not running as a woman" statement. I understand that this is not her platform, but the statement makes no sense. Is she hoping no one will notice? Is she hoping if she just ignores it, everyone will forget? That, to me, feels like a slap in a face. I will not feel that our government is "truly representative" until a woman doesn't have to pretend that her gender isn't noticed by everyone to get in, also not until many other groups who are not represented are, and when I see that the "balancing powers" do not block her just because she is a woman. If HC or any other woman or minority were in office, they would have to still fight much harder than your average republican white guy to get things done. The measure, for me, is more than just can a woman get elected. There is so much more that needs to be done.

I brought up HRC because that is what the original post was about.

And as the 51% nerdalert refers to, tell me again who has been stopping us from having a women president in this country? Susan B. Anthony would be ashamed of all of you.

Oh, yes equityforbothgenders, I forgot! The marginal majority of women in the United States are at fault for the 200 years of male-only presidents. Damn, if we had just infiltrated the boys club of politics sooner! Gosh, I guess we have nothing to complain about when it comes to underrepresentation in our government. Thanks for reminding me that we women are just so lazy! Silly me, I thought it had to do with the value put upon male power, and the general cultural ideal that women are much too emotional and have no real agency for themselves, let alone enough to run a whole country! Oh, you. Thanks for putting me in my place, and wagging ole Susie's suffragette finger at me. Kisses!

It's ridiculous to think we need a woman for president, or to vote for the first one to run as if we are accomplishing some great thing. Clinton makes my stomach turn, but the other candidates do as well. I'm not going to vote for any old asshole, in particular just because the ashole is next to another stinky hole instead of a fleshy protuberance. It baffles me how supposedly intelligent people in this country base their votes on someones genitals. The human race is advancing? Cripes - crotch votes and insatiable selfishness are hardly new inventions or ways of thinking. The chorus of feminists chiming "I want power, I want power" pretending to be somehow unique is absurdly pathetic. Just like children we all have the claim to righteousness and the desire to have everything done our way. Wow, that's so amazing to hear from women, who claim it just hasn't been that way for them. On the Titanic it was 'women and children first' (I guess that doesn't count for anything) but I say let the whole damn bunch sink to the bottom. So is the presidency some symbol of shared power, or are we now moving to the 'girls's rule' phase?

It's ridiculous to think we need a woman for president, or to vote for the first one to run as if we are accomplishing some great thing. Clinton makes my stomach turn, but the other candidates do as well. I'm not going to vote for any old asshole, in particular just because the ashole is next to another stinky hole instead of a fleshy protuberance. It baffles me how supposedly intelligent people in this country base their votes on someones genitals. The human race is advancing? Cripes - crotch votes and insatiable selfishness are hardly new inventions or ways of thinking. The chorus of feminists chiming "I want power, I want power" pretending to be somehow unique is absurdly pathetic. Just like children we all have the claim to righteousness and the desire to have everything done our way. Wow, that's so amazing to hear from women, who claim it just hasn't been that way for them. On the Titanic it was 'women and children first' (I guess that doesn't count for anything) but I say let the whole damn bunch sink to the bottom. So is the presidency some symbol of shared power, or are we now moving to the 'girls's rule' phase?

It's ridiculous to think we need a woman for president, or to vote for the first one to run as if we are accomplishing some great thing. Clinton makes my stomach turn, but the other candidates do as well. I'm not going to vote for any old asshole, in particular just because the ashole is next to another stinky hole instead of a fleshy protuberance. It baffles me how supposedly intelligent people in this country base their votes on someones genitals. The human race is advancing? Cripes - crotch votes and insatiable selfishness are hardly new inventions or ways of thinking. The chorus of feminists chiming "I want power, I want power" pretending to be somehow unique is absurdly pathetic. Just like children we all have the claim to righteousness and the desire to have everything done our way. Wow, that's so amazing to hear from women, who claim it just hasn't been that way for them. On the Titanic it was 'women and children first' (I guess that doesn't count for anything) but I say let the whole damn bunch sink to the bottom. So is the presidency some symbol of shared power, or are we now moving to the 'girls's rule' phase?

It's ridiculous to think we need a woman for president, or to vote for the first one to run as if we are accomplishing some great thing. Clinton makes my stomach turn, but the other candidates do as well. I'm not going to vote for any old asshole, in particular just because the ashole is next to another stinky hole instead of a fleshy protuberance. It baffles me how supposedly intelligent people in this country base their votes on someones genitals. The human race is advancing? Cripes - crotch votes and insatiable selfishness are hardly new inventions or ways of thinking. The chorus of feminists chiming "I want power, I want power" pretending to be somehow unique is absurdly pathetic. Just like children we all have the claim to righteousness and the desire to have everything done our way. Wow, that's so amazing to hear from women, who claim it just hasn't been that way for them. On the Titanic it was 'women and children first' (I guess that doesn't count for anything) but I say let the whole damn bunch sink to the bottom. So is the presidency some symbol of shared power, or are we now moving to the 'girls's rule' phase?