Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Simon,
Good point, statistical sample looks too low.
-
Craig,
Page 8 of the pdf file of the survey, under the title Groups/Vote the authors directly equates voter preference to support for a candidate. The 538 site Simon links to also interprets voter preference listed in the survey as support.
-
Paul,
Excuse me, I conflated my view that Palin asks uncomfortable questions for feminists by using a nationwide survey that shows Palin (who has non-progressive views on a wide range of subjects) polls well amoung a group that the feminist movement claims to be supporting. I do apologise that might be incorrect. It could well be that it is the other viiews that Palin holds that attract these women voters and any feminist movement ideals are irrelevent to the decision making. Feminist ideals might not be under question, they might be irrelevent or perhaps these so-called feminists might not be feminists at all but merely political hack Democrats. Possibilities abound.
Besides which, Palin's complete and utter lack of experience negates your argument. If she had half the experience of any of the other candidates, you might have had a point, but she doesn't - she was selected last minute, is grossly under-qualified and appears to be entirely unsuited to a job that requires judgment and discretion.
Well apart from having experience similar to Obama, she was vetted back in May, has governed a state with 15,000 employees and has shown judgement enough to run a victorious election campaign against the wishes of the old guard Alaskan GOP.
I'd not conflate your ideas with the electorate - polling indicates variance.
-
Craig,
Pretty sure voter preference and voting intention mean the same thing. Approval ratings are listed under positive image ratings later in the article and all candidates poll favourably.
-
Angus, if your argument is that Palin's popular, I'll not disagree. If you however, argue that her candidacy represents a high point for feminism then I do. She's not a credible candidate, and her gender doesn't change that.
Actually Paul I think you'll find that popularity is the defining characteristic of a candidate's credibility.
-
Anyone want to point out to Angus how he's done a Coulter on his own source.
It'll sound better coming from you, much less ambiguity.
-
The only element of her candidacy that suits your thesis is that...
...her nomination was the highlight of a convention that ABC News has credited with a 20% shift from Obama to McCain amoung white woman voters.
-
How, exactly, does this one person negate an entire political movement?
When that woman is President of the United States it doesn't negate the movement, but it makes the core argument less convincing. It is a big, shining exception to the feminist theory that carrying through all pregnancies is inhibiting upon a woman's advancement. There is no higher level of office and therefore her pro-life choices cause no drag* on her ambitions.
* apart from obviously the opposition represented by the Democratic Party and associated lobby groups.
-
Feminism means deciding who is the most qualified person for the job, *regardless* of whether they have a vagina or a penis.
Yes there is a deeper debate which I think goes like the following.
The decision endorsed by the NOW revolves around their perception that a pro-life/pro-marriage choice is inhibiting upon a female's advancement and thus endorse an old white male who disfavours those beliefs. The NOW feel that a female holding to that set of beliefs is not qualified to be President of the United States of America*.
The counter-argument is that a female holding to those beliefs who achieves the Presidency* has so obviously not been inhibited it makes the NOW argument is totally baseless. And the fact that NOW are continuing to make it anyway stems not from any interests in females per see, but more in securing their place at a Democatic victory party.
(* one heart beat away from)
-
As, in effect, the first insight we get into the kind of decision-making that would come from President McCain I can't say I'm impressed.
He wants to win an election so seeks to broarden his appeal amoung conservative christians and female independents. Yes it is cynical, however when it comes to politicians smart cynicism* beats forthright stupidity.
* Also seen when a fresh faced candidate advocating "change" picks a veteran career politician as his running mate.