Also, are we getting General Discussion: Politics back for next year?

having posts hidden and being banned. I'm the wrong person to ask I'm afraid I would ask a DU old timer.

I wonder if there's a way to find out if you were ever alerted or had a post removed. My guess is that I haven't had any, since I'm not very controversial and never attack anyone.

If you've had a post hidden.

Go to the 'My Profile' link at top right, then look at the Jury section. After 'Chance of Serving on Juries' is a blue 'Explain' link. That will show hidden posts in the last 90 days. There's no way of knowing about alerts.

PS. You've had no posts hidden!

and be alerted to its presence by a big yellow line showing up accross your screen. You'll definitely know about it.

this...we don't want a repeat of 16.

my humble advice. Chances are 50/50 on any given day your post will be removed even when posts saying nearly identical are allowed to stand. It is indeed subjective.

And this whole thread will likely get either locked or removed...

All have good and bad qualities, histories, and records. Focus on what you like.

It would be so much more peaceful here if everyone would do that.

Every single Democrat is a better choice than our opponents. No need to do the RW's work for them.

I still am.

It'd be nice to see some positivity during the primary season for a change.

I know that I tried to do this last go around. I know you did as well.

Let's highlight the good instead of what the GOP is going to naturally frame as bad.

as long as you don't trash them completely as Democrats. Remember 2016? Pointing out a candidate's weaknesses is germane to the primary process.

Aren't there enough repugs to call unlikable?

Then say however they lack charisma needed for this fight. I can think of several who are outstanding in their policies and knowledge who would bore the electorate to sleep.

Why don't you instead tell us about the candidate that you do like and why.

You can even say why you don't like them.

But I hope it's not their looks, or their voice, or their age, or their gender, or my god the idiotic, "I don't know. It's just something about them."

If it's one of those, or something similar, then I suggest you keep a lid on it.

You're an adult. You know how this works.

Considering the GOP elected a con man womanizer as POTUS.

"too shrill." They couldn't exactly define what that means but it was how they chose to explain themselves. I'm sure that in different company (i.e., Repubs) they all would have more detailed explanations.

The odd thing is that IMHO, there is no one on the political scene more shrill than DJT.

I've never once heard her say that about a male candidate.

And if you are speaking loudly & over a mic & in a big space, like at a rally, it can sound shrill. A good voice coach can help a lot with that. But you are right it is a common complaint, even when the woman's voice isn't shrill. HRC has a wonderful voice, strong not shrill, but she was often accused of being shrill.

It sounds bad to suggest it, but unfortunately elections are "popularity contests".

Women unfortunately have extra burdens on them when they run for office. But since elections are "popularity contests" and not job interviews, there isn't much that can be done.

Voters don't vote based on qualifications but on personality.


Study after study has shown that the majority of voters vote with their emotions more than anything else. (Especially for president)

I myself will vote for the most qualified candidate, but I can't control how other people vote.

In business consulting, it was required ..voice and image evaluation and coaching.

I think she has an outstanding voice for politics! I don't recall her ever sounding shrill. And if they mean contextual, same thing. She is not shrill. Her message is not shrill.

In other words, they hate her because she’s a woman candidate for a previously exclusive male position.

can come across as shrill? A person without ulterior motives objectively looking at someone and hearing shrillness? Been trying to think of a male who is shrill.

“ Shrillness” is way of negatively characteriising the higher-pitched female voice. If you dislike the idea of a woman doing something, you can attack a female characteristic, eg., a higher-pitched voice, without actually saying “I feel threatened by women more accomplished than me”, whether you’re a man or a woman.

A woman can have a higher pitched voice and not be shrill, no? When I think of shrill I think of other behaviors along with it. Like coming across as hyper-emotional and not calm cool and collected. But I have never thought about the origin of the word are all the points you're bringing up. Thanks for educating me

Maybe not the textbook definition of shrill, but close enough.

I know it’s become the party line du jour that “likeability” is a sexist construct designed exclusively to be used against women, but history doesn’t bear that out. Remember Dubya? However manifestly-unqualified he was compared to Gore and Kerry, a lot of voters supported him because he was “the candidate they would most like to have a beer with.” That’s “likeability” in a nutshell. Remember how people used to say that Reagan was “so nice,” even as he implemented policies that brought untold suffering to millions? Remember how Bush 41 was touted as a “regular guy” versus the “robotic” Dukakis? Ditto.

In fact, if you look at virtually every election of the post-Watergate era, I suspect you’ll find the “more likeable” candidate has won pretty much every time. I’m not saying it’s a good thing; in fact, I think it’s a reflection of the shallowness that has created so many of our problems, and I think America would be a lot better off if people voted strictly for the candidate with the better qualifications and proposals, rather than the one they’d most enjoy hanging out at a bar with. But I think we do need to acknowledge that it’s a phenomenon that does exist, and take it into consideration.

Dubya was "likable" and that was good enough.

But what man was ever unlikable?

He's pretty unlikeable.

Seems for Republicans, being unlikable is not a problem.

I always have. I can't understand the appeal for some people. I find a lot of republicans very unlikable. There are a few Democrats that are pretty short on charisma, however.

McConnell, Ryan, the Orange Fuehrer, Mittens. I guess those who vote for them don't need them to be likable, just hateful.

in his DNA.

Intelligence didn't come into play there.

Guess every elected candidate has a unique mix of winning attributes. Every single one of Trump's primary opponents was saner and more intelligent but the wingnuts liked him.

That subconscious thing where a woman seeking power is not "likable."

Likability has always factored into elections, sometimes it helps, sometimes it hurts. The most likable candidate has always won the presidential election except 2016 when we had two unlikable candidates nationally.

Reagan polled more likable than Carter and Mondale, Bush over Dukakis, Clinton over Bush and Dole, GW Bush over Gore and Kerry, Obama over McCain and Romney.

Likability has always been used as a weapon in presidential elections by both sides when it is time their advantage. Clinton and Trump finished with terrible likability numbers so why now all of a sudden it's "only used against female candidates" is kind of weird to see since it's historically been used against the most unlikable candidate (which Clinton and Trump were in a dead heat for running up to election day).

It's like some people have amnesia that there wasn't an article everyday about how low Trump and Clinton's likability or favorability ratings were, multiple articles a day about the historic low likability ratings for both candidates.

because it is a bullshit scenario, perpetrated by the MSM.

THEY decide who is "likable' and push the story.

Was Hillary actually more "unlikable" than Trump.

I thought Gore was a great guy and Bush was a drunken dolt.

But we had to play the "have a beer with game.

We should discuss that "likable" is pure drivel.

But, an individual can also form that opinion on their own as well. Totally human nature Imho.

And, unfortunately, it's a term that's more often applied to women than to men. A woman can't get away with being serious without being called humorless; she can't get away with talking about wonky policy stuff without being called preachy or school-marmish; she can't get away with criticizing anybody without being called a b*tch. If you don't like someone of course you can say so, if you can explain why without getting into personality characteristics that may or may not be unlikeable to others, and that don't have gender-biased overtones.

to avoid all that you mention. I think if you look at the entire picture of how a person wins an election though...it includes much more than policy positions. And some of the factors ARE superficial/intangible (voice, demeanor, humor, and the simple ability to transmit likability). For instance, Pence transmits zero likeability imho.

This OF COURSE is not the way it should be. But it is the way it IS given that most voters probably judge on all factors, don't you think?

But just because certain candidates don't have it all, doesn't mean it needs to be pointed out...is what I am taking away.

Yet I saw posts pointing out the same effing thing that were allowed to stand.

Proceed at your own risk

On who is reading at any giving moment and who is more likely to alert.

Also, post count by the poster appears to be a big factor in the survival of an OP. Sure seems like an OP made by someone with 20,000 posts is more likely to survive than a post made by someone with 2000 posts despite them both saying the same thing.

Never understood that.

But I am in the opinion minority many times it is odd though that constructive criticism of a Democratic that the majority loves will not survive yet criticism of Democratic that is not liked as well will. (Example...Democrats who did not vote for Pelosi)

Last two times I got dinged was because I criticized non-Democrat Bernie sanders for... you guessed it, criticizing Democrats.

It all depends on those on jury whether or not they really follow rule. I find that you can take any differing opinion and claim it's a right wing talking point.

If someone can articulate why they find a candidate unlikable, I'll listen and perhaps discuss. But if it's something superficial or subjective, "I don't like X because the voice is grating on my ear," that's not really a reasoned argument.

How someone looks or sounds isn't a factor.

A person's past policy positions, however, DO factor heavily into how I view them, especially if they haven't taken steps to mitigate or turn away from them.

Maybe we should be separating primary vs general. And there is some point when you transcend from your perfect person to whomever is elected. I think when I was younger I voted more in policy than all the other factors that make a winner.

I'll vote for the nominee in the general, even if it means holding my nose.

For example if a primary candidate had tried to implement European style speech restrictions as governor of X and refuses to turn away from that position then it could cause me to oppose them in the primary. The fact that they have the charisma of boiled spinach wouldn't.

much the same, and we nominate the one who the masses in general think is unlikeable, we have missed the opportunity to win people over. And, we may need to look at our nomination process to insure it's fair.

unless you can be more specific as to why you think that.

“Unlikable” about the candidate in question.

It’s one for YOU not to like them. It’s another thing to claim they are “ulikeable.” I don’t like Bernie Sanders, but a lot of folks do... see what I mean?

"generally" accepted vision of a public person? I find this to be true if you have ever seen any reality TV...someone you see may irk you and then you hear they are the most hated person on the show based on surveys.

In politics, it may be that a person is generally thought of as unlikeable. And the msm takes that and makes it worse by repeating it non-stop.

but I wouldn't say their names here.

We really should thinking in terms of qualified first and hope we end up with both qualified and likable.

Last edited Sun Jan 20, 2019, 03:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Before the primary. There is no way to have honest discussions about candidates within the rules and whims of the juries.

know how many times I've written a post and not posted...it's just too dangerous. I have 2 hides and I think if I get another one I get banned???? I'm not sure.... I would love to give money to the site but not sure how I can if I'm a second away from being banned.

—focus on behavior, not on subjective assessments of personality or traits.
—give examples of what the candidate has done that you support or do not support
—focus on job related actions only
—use the same standards for all candidates regardless or race, gender, age, etc.

Backed up all points with sources, taking care not to include RW pubs.

Her name is Tulsi Gabbard.

X, y or x". Give whatever reason you deem fit.

because that can be the difference between a Democrat or a Republican winning the race in question. In order to win a national general election, you need to get votes from non-party members. Many people are rather poorly informed and make emotional/instinctual choices and then backstop those decisions with post hoc rationalizations. In order to get those votes, your candidate needs to be someone those voters identify with at a gut level. One way, though not the only way as Trump has shown, of doing that is being personable, amiable, empathetic, charismatic, etc. In other words, likable.

Likable/unlikable is a trip-wire term around here though, because of the media's tendency to use it only/disproportionately in relation to women.

I also wonder if positive versus negative framing impacts how such sentiments are received. Rather than saying that a candidate is unpleasant, one could say that one would prefer a candidate who is more pleasant.

Should not be much question about that. Yet, it has been a serious problem in some past elections.

I take a break.

Oftentimes saying something that you like about a candidate will bring out the long knives by those who have chosen someone else as their “perfect” candidate. You can’t argue with people who have fallen in love.

For instance, when we look back a few short years, while most of us were really happy Obama won in 2008, there was a substantial group of racists for who he was 'unlikeable.' Just because he was black, you see.

If we are going to try instead and be real in our assessment of electability, to my mind we should look at the candidate's organization, funding and any skeletons that might be in their closet - not to 'out' them, you understand, but to help them overcome them.

Once a candidate is over these hurdles, they are 'viable.' Now, it is time to look at their message. Not only the content of the message - we have a very good platform that does in fact appeal to Americans. The main thing we need to look at is how effective they are in getting that message out. What is their cause?

See, with Citizens United, you're going to have super pacs on the other side pounding out messages on all the local (and national) channels that are filled with outright lies, distortions and innuendo. The media eats it up because it creates 'controversy' that increases viewership, and thus allows them to increase shareholder earnings by commanding higher advertising revenue. Citizens United has provided these corporations that own our media outlets a wonderful 'every-two-year' cash cow.

So, we must ask what strategies our viable candidate has to get out his/her message. Social media - AOC has proven herself a master of Twitter and is now teaching her newly elected colleagues in the House how to do the same. What about podcasts? We have a whole generation of kids now in their thirties, and a younger generation that has been raised with, and feels comfortable learning from podcasts. What other social media outlets will be used? Imgur, reddit, Tumblr and so on. There has to be a coherent strategy not only nationally, but at the grass roots. Supporters in your neighborhood have to post these short vids and podcasts. There needs to be a message that goes out strong, consistent and coherent. For instance, what about this new Next Door? How can we use that?

Then, we have to look at personal charisma. How well do they get the message across in person? Individually? in groups?

Do they have rallies, or should they? Town Halls using new technologies - webinars. Why don't our candidates do more webinars? Grass roots could help generate attendance. You could host a 'webinar' party only we wouldn't call it that - sounds lame.

See what I mean? How well does the candidate generate memes? How many followers do they have on Twitter? How can they generate more? And what is their strategy to keep the memes coming, keep the message compelling.

So, I'm going to be looking for, and helping at the local level, candidates I support that are most effective at doing these things.

As to likeability? That's more in the actions than anything else, but the person has to have a certain amount of charisma to be electable. That's the wild variable. Look at Trump. He had two basic messages - make America great again, and build a wall. I mean these are pretty lame unless you account for his charisma. Plus he got all that free media coverage. Great for ratings, right? But lousy for the country.

Well, enough. In the end, all that's left for me to say is we all have to work together to elect a Democrat to the WH and flip the Senate. We simply have to turn this country blue, so remember this, all of you: Trump won because he espoused a cause - yeah, I know, it was a shitty, racist one, but he gathered people around that cause.

Every candidate we run needs to share the common causes espoused in our platform: make Americans' lives better (healthcare, expanded Social Security, more affordable education, infrastructure projects), create economic prosperity by creating opportunity (leveling the playing field through good policies), and finally SAVING THE EARTH. My grandchildren, and ALL OF YOU, need AOC's Green New Deal NOW. We don't have any more time to wait or be mug-wumps. We need that NOW and we need to create it as a huge, compelling cause.

so much better at being more social media savvy. Although trump used his simple soundbites to strew hate...it is an example of someone who knows how to get messages out there. There is so much static and so much information out there you can't possibly win the most people over with a link to massive amounts of policy papers that people won't read.

To be heard, one's message needs to be short and succinct. " I believe no child in America should be homeless or go to bed hungry." vs. ONLY "click on my link to see my plan on child hunger and homelessness"

active - I am a member of my county's Democratic Party Platform Committee, and I have the wonderful privilege, because I've been so very lucky in life, of being an economist. I get to put together studies and make presentations that hopefully make a difference.

But you know what? My grandkids need AOC's Green New Deal NOW - climate change has accelerated to the point that we have to have an ambitious plan to mitigate and systematically reduce our carbon footprint. Otherwise our children and grandchildren won't have the kind of planet we did growing up.

We need healthcare. I'm sick and tired of being told it isn't feasible, or America isn't ready for it. They repeatedly vote in big tax cuts for rich people, route billions to defense, and waste untold dollars on forever wars. How are those things better for us than healthcare? In fact, how is a border wall better for us than healthcare?

So, I'm going to step up my activity with my county's Democratic Party, and hopefully do my part to help the party show some really good election results come 2020.

****

I did see something nice, though, today. My wife and I went over to my son's apartment to see it. Nice little place. Small one-bedroom for which he's paying $1300 per month. Nice view though. And, there in the parking lot, was an extension cord from the side of the building to a car - a person had an electric car plugged in charging. That made me feel good!

Well, enough of that. Thanks for your nice reply.

for electric car purchases!!!

having a beer with?

How'd that turn out last time???

"Them" are the ones who determine the outcome of elections.

everyone's entitled to an opinion, particularly regarding primary season, and *you* or *i* or anyone else here can say i don't like this candidate or that candidate. i mean that's part of having a primary season, to pick the best and leave the rest behind.

but saying someone is "unlikable" puts a lot more on that candidate than simply a personal evaluation of that candidate.

it says that that candidate is impossibly, irredeemably doomed.
it says that *you* shouldn't like this person too.
it says that nobody is ever going to like that person.

that's much more damaging to that candidate's *current* political career, not merely to their presidential aspirations this cycle.

i think calling any democrat "unlikable" is more damaging overall than is appropriate during primary season.


worse, i think it's discriminatory, because the term "unlikable" is not applied equally to democrats as opposed to republicans, or to women as opposed to men, or to liberals as opposed to conservatives.

when was donnie or mcturtle or any of those offensive jerks on the right ever called "unlikable"? the list begins and ends with ted cruz. that's it.

I consider anyone with a D after their name likeable.

used to discount female candidates. It's been used against Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. It's already being used against Warren and Gillibrand. And it's often couched in: It's not as if I wouldn't vote for a woman, just not that woman.

How many times did we hear that during 2016?

A subtle but effective way to trash a specific woman and/or women in general because it is subjective yet leaves a nice ding. Say it often enough and even if the evidence is ambiguous (or entirely false), people begin repeating and nodding knowingly:

But you know, she just isn't likable.

We need to learn from past mistakes and throwing out those subtle, some would say nuanced digs is a biggie.

That is different than saying we believe this or that candidate is inherently flawed.

when making a decision - and can they define what they like? And do we know they'll be thinking about that in 2020? If not, then talking about 'likeability' might be a waste of everyone's time.

Pointing out weaknesses is a different matter. For instance, I think there's a high chance a lot of voters will be looking for honesty, after enduring Trump for up to 4 years. Some might call that "likeability", but others wouldn't. Many will, I think, search for a candidate with empathy and understanding of the average person - again, you might call that 'likeability', or something else. If you do want to point out weaknesses, then be more specific - "this person comes across as aloof" or "cavalier with the truth".

Different in the UK.

It's how our political system works! We vote for a "rock star" at the top.

Likability for down ballot is not as important.

people don’t all see it the same way. It’s personal to each of us — and I think we as Democrats will all be better off, here at DU as well as in future election results, if we keep it that way.

If we were able to vote on it, I’d vote “No”.

Point out verifiable facts about a candidate, disagree with actual policies and past actions, but why say a Democratic candidate is "unlikeable?"

But honestly, I would hope most would have a better criterion.

GWB, despite his limitations, was defined by.....who...MSM, pollsters, whoever....as a likeable guy to have a beer with.
Women candidates are under a different lens. In fact, so was Obama to some extent. Except for all those that hated him because he was unjustly cast as a Kenyan, Muslim, socialist, terrorist.

Let's face it. The political reality is that the standards are different for no real reason other than the patriarchal society we have lived in.

Nancy Pelosi is an effective leader who cannot possibly be described as shrill. So the detractors use other adjectives.

Calling someone "unlikeable" is not pointing out their weakness. It's a snarky, information-free burp. It's a useless hiccup. It says nothing, conveys no useful knowledge, says more about the person speaking than the so-called "unlikeable" candidate.

For god's sakes, haven't we learned anything from 2016?

Likability is very subjective and is almost always used as a proxy to avoid stating a more definitive reason for not wanting that person. If there has been a poll that showed more people seeing the person as "unfavorable", THAT could be objectively stated. In addition, as elections are closer, potential winners are polled on many characteristics. I would suggest that unless someone is very different than peers, these questions may simply reflect whether the person answering wants that person to win.

As to unlikability, one reason I hate that charge is how can anyone coherently dispute it? The other is that the Presidency needs someone with vision, skill, and leadership skills. It should not be a popularity contest.

Saying you don't like a candidate and then saying what you don't like and why should be OK but calling them unlikeable implies there's something wrong with anyone who likes them, like "you must be stupid" or something.