Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Valishar

Valishar

Molten Core Raider
766
424
Canada: strict political party donation limits.
Female parliament rep: 25%

USA: Practically no limits.
Female congress rep: 18%

Similar cultures and I know Canada has no mechanism or quota for female member election preference. But the reelection rate is around 86% compared to high 90s for the US right?

I think the issue is more the old old men just stick around longer, meaning younger female reps don't get in, not necessarily finance reform related.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,202
23,397
Sebudai_sl said:
The question remains the same. How does this data support the notion that donors are reluctant to supportpotentialfemale candidates?
Click to expand...
So what's the competing hypothesis for why there's more white men in the US House/Senate?Are white men just naturally more gifted at congressional politics? Because this current crop could not be fucking worse at politics.

That's the part that gets me. You'll all agree that our campaign finance system is completely fucked up. And you'll all agree that the candidates it produces are terrible, and that the people who get elected are shitty at their jobs.

But as soon I bring up the idea that gender bias might be part of that problem, it's suddenly off limits, because now it's YOUR identity that's under attack.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,202
23,397
valishar_sl said:
Canada: strict political party donation limits.
Female parliament rep: 25%

USA: Practically no limits.
Female congress rep: 18%

Similar cultures and I know Canada has no mechanism or quota for female member election preference. But the reelection rate is around 86% compared to high 90s for the US right?

I think the issue is more the old old men just stick around longer, meaning younger female reps don't get in, not necessarily finance reform related.
Click to expand...
25% would be fucking great. That'd be a 40% improvement over 18%.
 
Adebisi

Adebisi

Clump of Cells
<Silver Donator>
27,713
32,825
Adebisi reading this thread:
rrr_img_68308.jpg
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
80,150
160,366
Mist_sl said:
So what's the competing hypothesis for why there's more white men in the US House/Senate?Are white men just naturally more gifted at congressional politics? Because this current crop could not be fucking worse at politics.

That's the part that gets me. You'll all agree that our campaign finance system is completely fucked up. And you'll all agree that the candidates it produces are terrible, and that the people who get elected are shitty at their jobs.

But as soon I bring up the idea that gender bias might be part of that problem, it's suddenly off limits, because now it's YOUR identity that's under attack.
Click to expand...
Youre trying to string several unrelated ideas together and it just doesnt work. Even if everything is equally terrible, why do more women vote for men and other women?


Herp derp white old guys keeping female candidates down doesn't work
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,202
23,397
Araysar_sl said:
Youre trying to string several unrelated ideas together and it just doesnt work. Even if everything is equally terrible, why do more women vote for men and other women?


Herp derp white old guys keeping female candidates down doesn't work
Click to expand...
You're still insisting that the general election matters. Your point would only make sense if there was a roughly equal number of male and female candidates in the general election, or even at the primary level.

I keep saying it over and over. The campaign system, as it exists, produces mostly male candidates. And one of the two major parties, when they do produce female candidates, produces ones that are unpalatable to women.

Women are very good at sniffing out which other women are really whores. That's why it was mostly men, and some very stupid women, who were enamored with Sarah Palin.
 
JVIRUS

JVIRUS

Golden Knight of the Realm
429
168
Haha yes, life so easy for X or Y and not Z!

Greetings from Southern Argentina and Chechnya
 
Sebudai

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
Mist_sl said:
So what's the competing hypothesis for why there's more white men in the US House/Senate?Are white men just naturally more gifted at congressional politics? Because this current crop could not be fucking worse at politics.

That's the part that gets me. You'll all agree that our campaign finance system is completely fucked up. And you'll all agree that the candidates it produces are terrible, and that the people who get elected are shitty at their jobs.

But as soon I bring up the idea that gender bias might be part of that problem, it's suddenly off limits, because now it's YOUR identity that's under attack.
Click to expand...
I don't even care about the answer to this question that you're posing. What I cared about was getting you to stop prancing your guesses around as facts, which you're still doing. You didn't just bring up the possibility that gender bias "might" be part of the problem, you asserted it as a fucking fact. We've already offered you several viable alternative explanations for this particular phenomenon, so why do you think your hypothesis was better than these alternatives? Did you test them? Nope. You justfeellike yours is better, by using yourfeelings.

You have a hypothesis. It's a hypothesis you have no way of testing (assuming you were even capable of figuring out how to test it properly, which I'm starting to doubt), and I've known this the whole time. The truth is you don't know why the US elects fewer women than other Western countries, so just stop prancing your unsubstantiated guess around as a fact.

Furthermore, congressional politics =/= electoral politics. Considering the current crop of representatives have like a 90% reelection rate, yeah, they are pretty fuckin' good at the aspect of their job that they and their major donors care about most.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,202
23,397
Sebudai_sl said:
I don't even care about the answer to this question that you're posing. What I cared about was getting you to stop prancing your guesses around as facts, which you're still doing. You didn't just bring up the possibility that gender bias "might" be part of the problem, you asserted it as a fucking fact. We've already offered you several viable alternative explanations for this particular phenomenon, so why do you think your hypothesis was better than these alternatives? Did you test them? Nope. You justfeellike yours is better, by using yourfeelings.

You have a hypothesis. It's a hypothesis you have no way of testing (assuming you were even capable of figuring out how to test it properly, which I'm starting to doubt), and I've known this the whole time. The truth is you don't know why the US elects fewer women than other Western countries, so just stop prancing your unsubstantiated guess around as a fact.

Furthermore, congressional politics =/= electoral politics. Considering the current crop of representatives have like a 90% reelection rate, yeah, they are pretty fuckin' good at the aspect of their job that they and their major donors care about most.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. I don't just have a hypothesis. I've also refuted the null hypothesis.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Can we at least acknowledge that the female candidates we've seen have been generally terrible and it is entirely reasonable for women not to want to vote for them without being cunty bitches who just hate other women?

If you offer me a moldy sandwich and I refuse to eat it, it's not because I don't like sandwiches. This suggestion that American women prefer to vote for men is preposterous, not because more women don't vote for men (they do), but because it assumes that the gender of a candidate is somehow the deciding factor for women voters, which is incredibly insulting and has nothing to back it up.

I agree that Mist hasn't done more than point out a correlation, but the idea that "women haven't voted for the women candidates they've seen, therefore women must hate other women" is exponentially more retarded than anything Mist has said, and has FAR greater basis on one's unsubstantiated "feelings".
 
rhinohelix

rhinohelix

Dental Dammer
<Gold Donor>
3,045
5,014
Mist_sl said:
You're still insisting that the general election matters. Your point would only make sense if there was a roughly equal number of male and female candidates in the general election, or even at the primary level.

I keep saying it over and over. The campaign system, as it exists, produces mostly male candidates. And one of the two major parties, when they do produce female candidates, produces ones that are unpalatable to women.

Women are very good at sniffing out which other women are really whores. That's why it was mostly men, and some very stupid women, who were enamored with Sarah Palin.
Click to expand...
You may not think so, but "uncle Tom"ing Sarah Palin and Meg Whitman just makes you look even more like a floundering asshat flapping about nothing. Well, even more than your other posts that distantly connect you to reality.

EDIT: its also my experience that people crying about Campaign Finance: A) want more radical candidates than the primary system tends to support; B) Want more govermental/Big Media control of the election process.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,202
23,397
I did not uncle tom Meg Whitman, I just said she wasn't a candidate women wanted to vote for. If she was, she totally would have won.

Sarah Palin on the other hand is the most blatantly whorish woman to run in major election ever. She could not have been more of a whore if she wore a t-shirt that said "Will Gargle Cum For Money."

In fact, she quit her job as governor to go gargle cum for money with her SuperPAC and on Fox News. She never had any interest in actually governing.
 
Sebudai

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
The idea that gender is the deciding factor for female voters? Insulting! The idea that gender is the deciding factor for male voters? Hmm, interesting hypothesis.

Are you people for fuckin' real?

Furthermore, I'm still trying to figure out how general election donation data somehow lends support to the hypothesis that the good ol' boys club weeds out potential female candidates from even running due to gender bias. I'm also wondering what a "genuine" female candidate is supposed to be. What, Michelle bachmann isn't a genuine female candidate because Mist doesn't like her? How does this work?

Can we at least acknowledge that the female candidates we've seen have been generally terrible and it is entirely reasonable for women not to want to vote for them without being cunty bitches who just hate other women?
Click to expand...
All the candidates are terrible. It's not just the female candidates. Do you think the average guy is super enthusiastic about Harry Reid or whoever else the fuck? No.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,202
23,397
Sebudai_sl said:
The idea that gender is the deciding factor for female voters? Insulting! The idea that gender is the deciding factor for male voters? Hmm, interesting hypothesis.
Click to expand...
No, this isn't what I said at all. I didn't say anything about male VOTERS. I proposed the idea that gender is the deciding factor for in incredibly small number of very rich DONORS who are the biggest deciding factor in selecting who gets to RUN in the first place.

I think that once women get to the general election, the electorate is actually surprisingly very fair towards them.
 
Sebudai

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
Mist_sl said:
No, this isn't what I said at all. I didn't say anything about male VOTERS. I proposed the idea that gender is the deciding factor for in incredibly small number of very rich DONORS who are the biggest deciding factor in selecting who gets to RUN in the first place.
Click to expand...
I know. I'm also responding to Tanoomba. But while we're here, why do you think general election donation data supports this idea? I'm still not getting why you think A is evidence of B here in this particular case.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,202
23,397
Sebudai_sl said:
I know. I'm also responding to Tanoomba. But while we're here, why do you think general election donation data supports this idea? I'm still not getting why you think A is evidence of B here in this particular case.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about the general election. Did you watch the Lesterland video? Lawrence Lessig is way smarter than I am (it might have something to do with his penis, I'm not sure, I'd need to see some charts first.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.