Thank you for replying without insulting me or other women.
I want to apologize for giving wrong information. I went back and looked at the segment, and I saw that Bee was not talking about a poll; she was talking about what a Trump spox on CNN claimed (check it at 24 minutes into the 9/28 Full Frontal). There wasn't a poll after the debate that showed married women supporting Trump. I googled "after debate married women support Trump" and "post-debate married women reaction" and found nothing except articles from April and May about how married women are skeptical of Trump and the following from after the debate: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-after-debate-women-think-less-trump-better-clinton-n656321 and http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/us/politics/women-voters-reaction.html
So Bee was merely showing a clip of the Trump campaign once again putting forth an unsubstantiated claim, and then Bee made a provocative and funny comment about it.
Today, I doubt any polling organization would find 1000 women, one after the other, in that same position. I would imagine that most women that answer the phone today do not have to knuckle under to a Neanderthal so if they took the time to answer the phone (or e-mail) they they would make their true feelings known.
Are you so sure? After my father-in-law died, my mother-in-law admitted to the family that she secretly voted Democrat against her husband's strong wishes. He was not physically abusive but he had a temper, and she didn't want to make waves. Maybe she was the 1001st in line for a poll, or maybe your stat is just speculation.
What bait? The bait that Clinton followers hope will make the fish vote for Hillary
No, I don't think Bee is putting out bait for potential Clinton voters. Unconfident women probably don't make up a large share of her audience. On the other hand, she may have been putting out bait for easily offended men.
Hard working? I would call either hardly working. I would bet even though I have little in common with Elizabeth Warren that she probably works circles around the previous two. The same with Michelle Obama.
Okay, glad to know you see some good in Elizabeth Warren and Michelle Obama. Can you present evidence that Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright are not hard-working ? Thank you.
There are no uninteresting things, only uninterested people. – G.K. Chesterton
reply
share
BiffGG
8 years ago
As far as Clinton and Albright go they just do not have the profile that goes with accomplished US Senators and Secretary(s) of States. I honestly can't think of one piece of vital legislation that Clinton sponsored while representing New York. Clinton has never been in a position of being an executive such as a being governor of a state. It used to be that being governor of a major state such as New York would demonstrate leadership applicable to national politics but anymore the governorship is a position of mockery such as it is currently with Cuomo in New York. It's just sad when you compare today's crop of politicians to those from generations ago. Grover Cleveland was the mayor of Buffalo, New York and I think that made him better suited for the Oval Office than what most of today's crop has to offer.
reply
share
oneseat
8 years ago
I agree that Clinton's Senate stint was not particularly fruitful, but remember that her party was in the minority for most of that time. I really don't get why you think being mayor of Buffalo better qualifies someone to be POTUS than being Secretary of State for four years, plus senator for six, plus First Lady for eight.
Could you please look at Wikipedia "Secretary of State" sections for both Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright and present evidence that they were not working hard to advance US interests in the world?
There are no uninteresting things, only uninterested people. – G.K. Chesterton
reply
share
BiffGG
8 years ago
Just sponsoring legislation but not necessarily getting it passed would demonstrate some intellect. The point with being mayor is that a person has an executive type position politically. That a mayor is not just a follower but is expected to initiate leadership. First lady can cut in any direction in terms of being a leader. First lady is not a clear barometer of intellect and leadership. Again, even though I have very little in common with Michelle Obama I would say she is a clearer leader with her efforts on child nutrition. Her turning part of the South Lawn into a garden is a clear and open demonstration of her concern on the matter. For me to consider a SOS I want to see ground breaking action with the office. Kissinger was not perfect by any stretch but he did light the direction in my mind for Nixon to normalize relations with China. Buying land for a nation has passed its prime for quite some time but I credit Seward for the US buying Alaska as a move with foresight economically. If Germany had a foreign minister with the vision to cultivate relations with foreign nations, have the ear of the Kaiser, and saw the benefit of economic means (buying or leasing land) Germany would have been on a far better track for most of the 20th Century versus engaging in two doomed wars which could have been foreseen as England, France, and Russia always worked together, sometimes unintentionally, to keep the middle of Europe divided.
reply
share
oneseat
8 years ago
I understand what you are saying about mayors gaining executive experience, but that experience does not include working with other countries or being in a body made of representatives of other states in this very large and diverse nation of ours.
I admire Michelle Obama very much and think she has done a great job with her healthy children work. That was kind of a safe bet, though. As First Lady, Hillary Clinton took a risk and spearheaded an effort to reform health care in the US. It got shot down by a hostile congress, but she tried, and it was a worthwhile effort, in my opinion. As SOS, she had to deal with the Mideast clusterfuzz left by the Bush administration as well as growing concerns about China as a trade partner. During her term the Russians grew more bold and hostile, but Putin, like Donald Trump, is an egomaniac who is very hard to reason with. As far as Iraq and the birth and spread of ISIS goes, she was damned if she did advise Obama to defy the Iraqis and keep troops there and damned if she didn't. She had already been burned politically for her pro-Iraq-war vote in 2002. So she chose not to. My hunch is that she did the right thing. ISIS was going to be born whether there were US troops in Iraq after 2011 or not. If there had still be US troops there in 2013, when the group got its start, the troops may have been able to do some damage to them, but in doing so they would have only motivated more alienated and displaced young men to pop up like weeds and keep seeding the soil.
Secretary Clinton is not perfect, and her record isn't either, but I honestly don't see how anyone can equate her imperfections with Trump's. To get back to the original point, there may be a lot of women out there who go for Trump for various reasons, yes, including because their men do, but I won't be surprised if on November 8, more women than expected vote for Clinton.
There are no uninteresting things, only uninterested people. – G.K. Chesterton
reply
share
BiffGG
7 years ago
The figure has been put out that 53 percent of all women voted for Trump. Obviously, this percentage was not evenly distributed across all precincts as some certainly voted heavier for one candidate versus the other.
reply
share