• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost

knowell said:
It may suggest problems in the system. It may also suggest preferences that women have. Personally, I could not imagine a worse existence than being a politician. Men and women are different and it could be that part of those differences would account for the lower proportion of women in politics. It is a quite ugly business. My guess would be a bit of both.
Click to expand...

I think if it were 53-47 in the senate your argument could hold more water of it being "a bit" of both. It's 79-21. That's not merely a slight difference in proportion of the two.
 
Excerpt from a Brookings study on the disparity (from 2014):

But the burden of family is not why women are less likely to run, according to Lawless. The critical factor, she argues, is that women are less likely to be encouraged to run and less likely to be considered as a potential candidate when a position opens up.

“Political gatekeepers tend to recruit from their own networks, and those are men who tend to operate in pretty male-dominated networks,” Lawless said in an interview. “So there’s not much evidence to suggest there’s any overt bias against potential female candidates. It’s just that they are not the ones that the electoral gatekeepers are surrounding themselves with. They’re not the immediate names that come to mind.”
 
bobknightfan said:
I don't give a fuck about the rankings. It is easier to read all the posters on these boards who are the results of those rankings. If I had never done that, I am quite certain that I would feel very different about my Alma Mater. Reading these boards has caused a sea-change in the way I view Wake Forest now as opposed to the way I viewed it before I ever posted on these boards. As I have said, you guys have really opened my eyes.
Click to expand...

https://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2015/12/24/maybe-the-problem-is-you/

Working on Changing You

The good news is that if the problem is indeed you, then the solution also lies within you. That means you can change the direction your life is taking for the better. But it also means you have to consciously choose to change.

Change is scary — few people undertake it without having deep second thoughts about it. In this sort of situation, “change” means getting some sort of help for taking a fresh approach in your life. Most often this means seeing a therapist for psychotherapy. A therapist can help with everything from learning how to better and more clearly communicate with others, to changing core parts of your personality to help make you a better person.

Even if the problem is you, you can address it. Change won’t take the form of some sort of psychiatric medication (although a medication may help for symptoms related to your underlying concern). Changes like this only happen when you make a concerted effort to improve. And if doing so on your own isn’t making much of a difference, turning to a trained therapist or other mental health professional is the best course of action.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm not an expert but I believe the 435 could be changed by Congress and doesn't require an amendment. It has increased several times in our history, most recently through the reapportionment act of 1929.

435 is not a constitutional construct.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure this is correct. In fact, the number used to increase as population increased, but congress put a cap on itself in 1929, which is partly what created to skew towards low population density areas having a disproportionate representation in congress and the electoral college. The Constitution mandates that every state get two senators and at least on representative, because of the size cap reps can be spatially shifted, but if all the population concentrates into fewer states, the low density states still get their reps and therefore get an increasingly disproportionate representation.
 
riscdeac said:
Oh boy. I'm on a journey here. Listening to young Deacs. I'm old and cranky. I think the people here are pretty damn smart. I'm learning a few things. I may not have much to offer but I'm enjoying.

Karl is a smart kid like all of you.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOLOLOL.
 
Seriously, how do you reconcile "not giving a damn about what any young liberal (on here) thinks", and having a complete 180 worldview change because of the posters on here?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Excerpt from a Brookings study on the disparity (from 2014):

But the burden of family is not why women are less likely to run, according to Lawless. The critical factor, she argues, is that women are less likely to be encouraged to run and less likely to be considered as a potential candidate when a position opens up.

“Political gatekeepers tend to recruit from their own networks, and those are men who tend to operate in pretty male-dominated networks,” Lawless said in an interview. “So there’s not much evidence to suggest there’s any overt bias against potential female candidates. It’s just that they are not the ones that the electoral gatekeepers are surrounding themselves with. They’re not the immediate names that come to mind.”
Click to expand...

To expand on this, there has also been an innate discouraging of people who are not white males to go out and run for Congress/do something political. Even if you are 40 years old and thinking about running for office then you grew up in the late 80's/early 90's. While that was a far cry from the 50's-60's, there was no doubt a stigma attached to women doing things that aren't "women roles", and vice versa for men.

The voting trends show that it is getting closer to a representation of the USA as far as demographics go, but it's just going to take some time for the current generation and beyond to get to the point where they are taking over these roles.

It's happening, I just wish it were happening quicker.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Seriously, how do you reconcile "not giving a damn about what any young liberal (on here) thinks", and having a complete 180 worldview change because of the posters on here?
Click to expand...

He started listening to posters with facts and reason.

It is possible you are in error, isn't it?
 
jhmd2000 said:
He started listening to posters with facts and reason.

It is possible you are in error, isn't it?
Click to expand...


giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
This thread moved really fast this afternoon. I would like to say I've never been more ashamed to be left-handed.
 
BKF, if you really want to see some Top 30* university graduates chat politics you should read the website called InsideCarolina. You might change your affiliation again.
 
riscdeac said:
So I'm not asking for my deposit back?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't, no. If you can afford to send your kids to wake then they'll get a great education and have a great time doing it.

Just don't let them post on this message board or BFK will tell them they are spoiled, entitled, know-it-all, millennial brats that haven't worked a day in their lives.
 
Wouldn't most people consider UNC to be a much more liberal school than Wake? 2 years ago didn't bkf lament how conservative Wake was? It's like a total rewrite of history because townie's friends and the doofi happened to find this message board. What a world.
 
bmoneydeac said:
Wouldn't most people consider UNC to be a much more liberal school than Wake? 2 years ago didn't bkf lament how conservative Wake was? It's like a total rewrite of history because townie's friends and the doofi happened to find this message board. What a world.
Click to expand...

I like how townie is our ringleader. And the doofi represent all posters younger than us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top