I believe that the charisma syndrome that elected Bill Clinton , also elected Barack Obama , is now ALSO choosing Hilary over Trump . Why , Trump doesn't have the charisma that either candidate had then . No matter what one believes about the issues is charisma more important than substance to women?
Trump does have charisma, it just a matter of from whose point of view. What is considered substance for you may well not be substance for others. You attempt to objectivefy something that is subjective and a matter of opinion.
Having chrisma is part of the selection process, but it is a part, not all. JFK had charisma, was he a poor president?
As a matter of fact Kennedy wasn't the greatest was he , the girls , the drugs , the cover-ups ,the wars , the false hero-izing , Truth is not subjective , there is only one of those to be had . Perhaps that is the difference between now and then though , It's all there for us to see today , all we have to do is filter through the garbage and there you have it , are you good at filtering , Hilary supporters apparently ,are not ?
Isn't disclosure good for the soul? Your truth and my truth are different, this is not mathematics, it is social science.
One example, no JFK was not the greatest, can we go with Ronald Reagan? Surely you have no problem seeing him as charismatic. You conservatives seem to believed that he walked on water, how does the substance verses charisma argument hold up now?
If the issue is big enough (in the mind of the voter) any of us are single issue. How many women cast a vote based solely on abortion position? Clinton herself said that would be the #1 consideration about any of her SCOTUS nominations.
And single issues often "morph" into much wider things - gun control becomes unconstitutional actions to control people overall. So does abortion, for that matter - we're forever hearing about women's "rights" to their own bodies.
Point well taken. I've never been a single issue voter but I have had women badger me to support pro choice candidates simply because of that stand. That's a problem I have with minorities. We, women, should never vote simply by what we can gain. One needs to take into account the needs of the entire country. Abortion is not an issue to draw a line in the sand with.
The needs of the country seem a far, dim memory to most voters anymore. It is far more about what they want, what they can get or how they can control others. Very sad, and I fear the results of such thinking.
The problem is that what is considered good for the entire country depends upon your perspective view on things. Conservatives always talk about the good of the country, saying liberals are focused on single issues. But they conveniently ignore their own narrow ideological desires on society, calling it 'for the good of the country'.
Oh for the love of... yes of course women choose who to vote for mainly on the basis of 'charisma'. They couldn't possibly be choosing on the basis of things like. . . I dunno. . . policy, or the fact that one of the candidates is openly racist and sexist and talks about groping women. Nope. For women it's all about Charisma.
Come on, at least try to bring your mindset into the 21st century. Good grief.
~ In my observation, women do not support each other as well as men support each other. In the work place they are very competitive. Many cringe at her voice. I do.
She has no charisma whatsoever. But what she stands for does. The Hillary campaign is a hippie dream the old hippies had and the wanna be hippies are still pursuing. It is ANCIENT archaic Nonsense in my mind. Hippiedom has always been charismatic. The original movement pretty much died with Manson and the murders. Am I way off? Wondering.
I won't be voting in the 2016 election, as all the candidates who did seem to have good sense lost, and the two vying for office... Don't seem to be very bright... But aside from that, it feels like a set up, as a means...