"Trump is following a playbook written for him by Christian White Nationalists."

[Aeson]

But I didn't pretend that racists and other hate-voters don't exist, did I? I observed that people who have evidence that they would vote for someone for being a woman or for being a protected class vastly outnumber those who have evidence that they would vote against someone for any of the same. This is certainly not saying that the haters don't exist. Also, I observed that since the dog whistle conjecture is non falsifiable and non-testable that it is not of much use for dealing with the lack of evidence of voters making their ballot selections based on hate rather on other non-hate related motivations.

<seeing if posts need extra padding at the bottom for small edits. whoops slowing down might help too>

You gave an anecdote of a few people. Even in your anecdote though it's unclear if they would have voted a different way if the candidate was male, or if they are just excited for a first. It doesn't seem to be a case that they would ONLY vote for women.

I know people that would never vote for a woman president. Ive even got people telling me on the bus, completely without any provocation, that Kamala couldn't be president because "what if she's *****y and just presses the button". I have never met anyone who would never vote for a male president.

Those are anecdotes.

You ignored the obvious fact that no woman has ever won the presidency. All the evidence supports that the net effect of sexism is against women, not for them.

[Aeson]

But I didn't pretend that racists and other hate-voters don't exist, did I?

No, and I did not claim you did.

What you did do is strongly imply I "believe that the vast majority of Trump voters are all lying about why they were willing to vote for Trump and the real reason which you have access to is that they are hoping to harm non white non male non straight non cis-gendered people" and that I didn't provide "evidence because it's all communicated via dog whistle". Both are extreme distortions of what I have said.

Then you tried to imply my arguments are Q anon conspiracy level. All while you refuse to address any statements I have made about Trump's platform, or actual election results.

[Geronimo]

No, and I did not claim you did.

What you did do is strongly imply I "believe that the vast majority of Trump voters are all lying about why they were willing to vote for Trump and the real reason which you have access to is that they are hoping to harm non white non male non straight non cis-gendered people" and that I didn't provide "evidence because it's all communicated via dog whistle". Both are extreme distortions of what I have said.

Then you tried to imply my arguments are Q anon conspiracy level. All while you refuse to address any statements I have made about Trump's platform, or actual election results.

So long as you aren't claiming that the primary determinant of the election was sexism or racism against Harris that's good enough for me. I absolutely do not buy that no woman could be elected president and prior and subsequent to Obama's nomination I did not buy that no non-white person could be elected president either.

Let's move on to your requested discussion of your statements about Trump's platform and any actual election results. could you clarify enough to help me get back to those topics?

[Aeson]

So long as you aren't claiming that the primary determinant of the election was sexism or racism against Harris that's good enough for me. I absolutely do not buy that no woman could be elected president and prior and subsequent to Obama's nomination I did not buy that no non-white person could be elected president either.

Let's move on to your requested discussion of your statements about Trump's platform and any actual election results. could you clarify enough to help me get back to those topics?

Again you take my factual statement that no woman has been elected president and my claim that suggests the net effect of sexism is against women, and instead argue against the strawman than no woman could be elected president.

My original statement was that with how close the election was, it's reasonable to suggest that racism and sexism could have covered that spread. (The spread being a couple hundred thousand votes in the swing states.)

If you flip a coin 59 times and it comes up the same way every time, you might want to check the coin for some bias. You certainly wouldn't expect it to have a bias contrary to the result.

I already posted about Trump's platform in regards to DEI, immigration, etc. You just skipped the whole post.

[giblets]

ahh. you believe that the vast majority of Trump voters are all lying about why they were willing to vote for Trump and the real reason which you have access to is that they are hoping to harm non white non male non straight non cis-gendered people? This doesn't require evidence because it's all communicated via dog whistle?

I begin to think this is going to resemble my conversations with Qanon nutjobs. I hope not.

They use euphemisms like saying they want "strong borders"

[N35t0r]

Yeah, Aeson has a lot more patience than me for arguing with you, Geronimo.

[Provost Harrison]

Logical fallacy.

Trumps platform is not necessarily the desire of all Trump's voters. Many hold their nose and vote for him. I described his platform.

Trump ran on ending Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It was one of his first acts as president to end DEI. He fired everyone who had anything to do with DEI. He is trying to fire everyone who fits the DEI profile. He constantly misrepresents what DEI is. He is trying to get private businesses to end their voluntary DEI programs.

Trump ran on getting back at all the other nations taking advantage of us. Mexico, Canada, China, for sending us so much stuff in return for our bits of paper. Everyone else for having VATs. He's constantly spouting xenophobic idiocy.

Trump ran on deporting 10 million illegals. Ending birthright citizenship. Ending and deporting DACA. He's constantly spouting off factually incorrect assertions about these groups. It's obvious racism and xenophobia.

Thanks Aeson, sums up what I am trying to say. If you're a canine, it's ****ing deafening.

[Provost Harrison]

You gave an anecdote of a few people. Even in your anecdote though it's unclear if they would have voted a different way if the candidate was male, or if they are just excited for a first. It doesn't seem to be a case that they would ONLY vote for women.

I know people that would never vote for a woman president. Ive even got people telling me on the bus, completely without any provocation, that Kamala couldn't be president because "what if she's *****y and just presses the button". I have never met anyone who would never vote for a male president.

Those are anecdotes.

You ignored the obvious fact that no woman has ever won the presidency. All the evidence supports that the net effect of sexism is against women, not for them.

From a UK or European perspective it is bizarre. We've had 3 female Prime Ministers...the first very notable, the last very notable too - and short lived. And mental. But the thing about Liz Truss is, no one gives a crap about her gender, they give a crap about her sheer incompetence and lunacy (and now back to her old weird pauses at CPAC begging for applause after saying something utterly ridiculous - the worse thing about parroting the Trump crap about the UK is that she was the Prime Minister, she should know better, but she's just a sad, lost attention whore, but anyway, I digress). We've had a PM of Asian descent too, I mean 3 of the 4 offices of state are not white men (2 women, 1 black). But I have to wrack my brain a bit because we live in a progressive society, I'm interested in their performance in the job, their physical attributes are a non-issue. I find it weird that the US is still so fixated on this stuff.

[giblets]

From a UK or European perspective it is bizarre. We've had 3 female Prime Ministers...the first very notable, the last very notable too - and short lived. And mental. But the thing about Liz Truss is, no one gives a crap about her gender, they give a crap about her sheer incompetence and lunacy (and now back to her old weird pauses at CPAC begging for applause after saying something utterly ridiculous - the worse thing about parroting the Trump crap about the UK is that she was the Prime Minister, she should know better, but she's just a sad, lost attention whore, but anyway, I digress). We've had a PM of Asian descent too, I mean 3 of the 4 offices of state are not white men (2 women, 1 black). But I have to wrack my brain a bit because we live in a progressive society, I'm interested in their performance in the job, their physical attributes are a non-issue. I find it weird that the US is still so fixated on this stuff.

People don't fetishize a Prime Minister the same way they do a President.

[BeBMan]

Re OP, over the last couple days Trump did follow a playbook by Christian White Nationalists indeed if we count in the Russian Orthodox branch.

​

[Geronimo]

Again you take my factual statement that no woman has been elected president and my claim that suggests the net effect of sexism is against women, and instead argue against the strawman than no woman could be elected president.

My original statement was that with how close the election was, it's reasonable to suggest that racism and sexism could have covered that spread. (The spread being a couple hundred thousand votes in the swing states.)

If you flip a coin 59 times and it comes up the same way every time, you might want to check the coin for some bias. You certainly wouldn't expect it to have a bias contrary to the result.

If for whatever reason we want to use an analogy of checking coin bias by observation of multiple tosses of the coin and observing the results we must make several huge adjustments to the analogy. The coin in this case is a coin which originally was a biased coin by design. Since then, some identified known biases (no female suffrage for example) are removed. The processes that removed the biases, oddly, are the same kinds of processes that would put them there in the first place and constitute an additional indirect measure of that bias. In any case, if we are checking for net residual bias we also have to consider that the coin is continually subject to a vast set of seen and unseen processes that can essentially refurbish the coin without limit. Also if heads is male candidate victory and tails is a female candidate victory then we have to acknowledge that in elections in which both major candidates were male the coin toss for that election year represented the toss of the two-headed coin making the preceding major party delegate processes rather than the coin toss itself constitute the entire coin toss event wrt to bias determination (with perhaps "heads" and "tails" inscriptions along the edge representing a non major candidate who technically made it to the general election). The coin of this analogy is constantly changed according to the whims of the political pendulum swings and long term population shifts in every dimension of culture given the dynamic society it is modelling. If we want to use the coin toss to show evidence of the general electorate bias we will have to exclude all coin tosses of a two-headed coin. the coin minting bias is not the same group as is modelled by coin tossing bias. these are different populations.

I will suggest that a huge reason for the number of two headed coins is that far fewer women pursue major party nomination and that this self-winnowing of female candidates makes a much larger difference than any general electorate gender bias. I suggest that the primary most powerful driving force behind this self-winnowing is an un-evidenced but widely disseminated message by you Aeson and huge swaths of society to women that if they choose to pursue this extremely grueling and demanding contest that they will do so facing a decisive handicap of a sexist general electorate that will to some decisive degree oppose their candidacy for being female.

I wonder what you would have said about your coin toss analogy in 2008? Would you argue that a coin that had already come up white more than 50 times in a row would obviously have very little chance of coming up non-white in subsequent tosses? I'd actually agree that you would have been correct but largely because non-white candidates believed they faced a decisive bias in favor of white candidates by the general electorate. Look at the outcome of the "draft"Colin Powell" movement and especially his responses to it. Colin Powel made clear that he felt race would be a decisive disadvantage in the election and then ultimately refused to run because he claimed the candidates should be far more motivated to run than he was. I wonder how much of that lack of motivation came down to lack of confidence that he could win an election skewed against him due to race and lack of motivation to throw himself into a grueling process in which he would compete with a handicap that would favor his opponent?

All of this talk of "obvious" sexism in presidential elections easily becomes self-fulfilling.

We know that there tend to be far fewer women who throw their hats in the ring. Maybe the causes of that, from lower sponsorship to less success with securing the support of the party faithful that dominate the caucuses and primaries has way, waaaay more to do with the casual assertion of the ingrained presence of decisive sexism in the general electorate by yourself and a huge portion of the population than it does with anything else?

Maybe the best way to get a female president would be to stop? Stopping doesn't mean we can't be proactive against biased outcomes, but we should definitely shift our focus from the general electorate to the candidate creation process that is minting all of these two-headed coins. Rather than DEI-style tactics (which focus on assumptions of ingrained privilege and parallel metaprocesses designed to offset the outcome-identified privileges presumed to exist as various unseen biased inputs into the process) focus should be on eliminating visible obstacles like the message that a decisive gender handicap exists in the general election.

Hillary losing to Trump, Trump losing to Biden and Harris losing to Trump is a ridiculously tiny sample size involving 3 seriously flawed candidates and a roller coaster of social trends and economic upheavals. don't pretend that it proves anything.
,

[Geronimo]

They use euphemisms like saying they want "strong borders"

if you were wrong about this, how would you know? Is this assertion even falsifiable? I certainly see why this assertion could be politically useful

[Geronimo]

From a UK or European perspective it is bizarre. We've had 3 female Prime Ministers...the first very notable, the last very notable too - and short lived. And mental. But the thing about Liz Truss is, no one gives a crap about her gender, they give a crap about her sheer incompetence and lunacy (and now back to her old weird pauses at CPAC begging for applause after saying something utterly ridiculous - the worse thing about parroting the Trump crap about the UK is that she was the Prime Minister, she should know better, but she's just a sad, lost attention whore, but anyway, I digress). We've had a PM of Asian descent too, I mean 3 of the 4 offices of state are not white men (2 women, 1 black). But I have to wrack my brain a bit because we live in a progressive society, I'm interested in their performance in the job, their physical attributes are a non-issue. I find it weird that the US is still so fixated on this stuff.

oh I see. In the enlightened UK nobody gives a crap about LIz Truss's gender but in the US people give a crap about niki Haley's gender and Harris' gender all of the time? Who? people like Aeson trying to explain election results in ways that are palatable to them? funny thing is, all of this race and gender fixation that puzzles you so much doesn't come from general discussions in the US. It comes from a certain general political direction in the US. Maybe that political direction is the puzzling entity in this context rather than the US in general.

[Geronimo]

Logical fallacy.

Trumps platform is not necessarily the desire of all Trump's voters. Many hold their nose and vote for him. I described his platform.

Trump ran on ending Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It was one of his first acts as president to end DEI. He fired everyone who had anything to do with DEI. He is trying to fire everyone who fits the DEI profile. He constantly misrepresents what DEI is. He is trying to get private businesses to end their voluntary DEI programs.

Trump ran on getting back at all the other nations taking advantage of us. Mexico, Canada, China, for sending us so much stuff in return for our bits of paper. Everyone else for having VATs. He's constantly spouting xenophobic idiocy.

Trump ran on deporting 10 million illegals. Ending birthright citizenship. Ending and deporting DACA. He's constantly spouting off factually incorrect assertions about these groups. It's obvious racism and xenophobia.

What did Harris run on?

If you're someone successful in your career who is defined by others as one of the protected classes that DEI is supposed to serve by helping those protected classes out and you've worked with a broad diverse slice of the population. do you think you welcome the presence of DEI in your workplace? If you verbalize opposition to DEI what does it mean?

Trump's idiocy about offsetting US trade deficits with country-by-country tariffs is moronic . What would possibly make you think it is best explained as an expression of xenophobia rather than brain-dead amateur macro-economics. If it was motivated by xenophobia wouldn't more culturally familiar countries like Canada and Mexico get lower tariffs relative to their trade account surpluses than more culturally distant countries? I'd be sincerely interested in how you concluded it was xenophobia.

Have you talked to low-income, low-skilled Americans, especially those who are members of a protect class about how they feel about deporting 10 million illegals. Ending birthright citizenship. Ending and deporting DACA?

[Aeson]

If for whatever reason we want to use an analogy of checking coin bias by observation of multiple tosses of the coin and observing the results we must make several huge adjustments to the analogy. The coin in this case is a coin which originally was a biased coin by design. Since then, some identified known biases (no female suffrage for example) are removed. The processes that removed the biases, oddly, are the same kinds of processes that would put them there in the first place and constitute an additional indirect measure of that bias. In any case, if we are checking for net residual bias we also have to consider that the coin is continually subject to a vast set of seen and unseen processes that can essentially refurbish the coin without limit. Also if heads is male candidate victory and tails is a female candidate victory then we have to acknowledge that in elections in which both major candidates were male the coin toss for that election year represented the toss of the two-headed coin making the preceding major party delegate processes rather than the coin toss itself constitute the entire coin toss event wrt to bias determination (with perhaps "heads" and "tails" inscriptions along the edge representing a non major candidate who technically made it to the general election). The coin of this analogy is constantly changed according to the whims of the political pendulum swings and long term population shifts in every dimension of culture given the dynamic society it is modelling. If we want to use the coin toss to show evidence of the general electorate bias we will have to exclude all coin tosses of a two-headed coin. the coin minting bias is not the same group as is modelled by coin tossing bias. these are different populations.

I will suggest that a huge reason for the number of two headed coins is that far fewer women pursue major party nomination and that this self-winnowing of female candidates makes a much larger difference than any general electorate gender bias. I suggest that the primary most powerful driving force behind this self-winnowing is an un-evidenced but widely disseminated message by you Aeson and huge swaths of society to women that if they choose to pursue this extremely grueling and demanding contest that they will do so facing a decisive handicap of a sexist general electorate that will to some decisive degree oppose their candidacy for being female.

I wonder what you would have said about your coin toss analogy in 2008? Would you argue that a coin that had already come up white more than 50 times in a row would obviously have very little chance of coming up non-white in subsequent tosses? I'd actually agree that you would have been correct but largely because non-white candidates believed they faced a decisive bias in favor of white candidates by the general electorate. Look at the outcome of the "draft"Colin Powell" movement and especially his responses to it. Colin Powel made clear that he felt race would be a decisive disadvantage in the election and then ultimately refused to run because he claimed the candidates should be far more motivated to run than he was. I wonder how much of that lack of motivation came down to lack of confidence that he could win an election skewed against him due to race and lack of motivation to throw himself into a grueling process in which he would compete with a handicap that would favor his opponent?

All of this talk of "obvious" sexism in presidential elections easily becomes self-fulfilling.

We know that there tend to be far fewer women who throw their hats in the ring. Maybe the causes of that, from lower sponsorship to less success with securing the support of the party faithful that dominate the caucuses and primaries has way, waaaay more to do with the casual assertion of the ingrained presence of decisive sexism in the general electorate by yourself and a huge portion of the population than it does with anything else?

Maybe the best way to get a female president would be to stop? Stopping doesn't mean we can't be proactive against biased outcomes, but we should definitely shift our focus from the general electorate to the candidate creation process that is minting all of these two-headed coins. Rather than DEI-style tactics (which focus on assumptions of ingrained privilege and parallel metaprocesses designed to offset the outcome-identified privileges presumed to exist as various unseen biased inputs into the process) focus should be on eliminating visible obstacles like the message that a decisive gender handicap exists in the general election.

Hillary losing to Trump, Trump losing to Biden and Harris losing to Trump is a ridiculously tiny sample size involving 3 seriously flawed candidates and a roller coaster of social trends and economic upheavals. don't pretend that it proves anything.
,

There's 2 males most elections because the bias against women doesn't even allow a woman to get that far most times. You mentioned 2008. Hillary didn't get past Obama.

Yes, we've made strides in reducing the effect of racism and misogyny on elections, but there's clearly still a net bias against women. Probably a net bias against minorities. Many of the people who were responsible for it being a completely insurmountable bias (pre-2000s) are still alive and voting.

It's ridiculous to try to blame this on the people pointing out and fighting against the bias. The blame lies squarely on misogynists and their apologists. Stop trying to excuse them.