Tag Archives: women’s issues

Waffles Heller, Heller Waffles

Heller spine poster.jpgThere are non-apology apologies (see Orange Blossom’s clumsy Hostage Video) and then there are non-disavowal disavowals (see Senator Dean ‘Clutching Papa’s Pants Leg’ Heller).

“Heller has been slow to criticize Trump as he looks to defend one of the most coveted GOP Senate seats in the country, and stopped well short of criticizing the president in a statementreleased late Monday afternoon.

“While I am not opposed to a dialogue between the two leaders, I trust our intelligence community’s assessment on Russian interference, not Vladimir Putin’s,” Heller said throu spokeswoman. “He is no friend of the United States and I don’t trust him.”  [RGJ]

Oh please!  I’ve tried to stretch the effect of a limited number of tea bags in a jar of sun tea and come out with less tepid ,,results.  Perhaps if the last line had directly pertained to the Orange Blossom, “He is no friend of the United States, and I don’t trust him,”  I’d have accepted this statement with more enthusiasm?

In the wake of the Charlottesville debacle there was a photo floating about of Senator Dean Heller and Peter Cvjetanovic, one of the Tiki Torch Nazis and a UNR student.  Heller responded in Trumpian fashion on Twitter: “I don’t know this person & condemn the outrageous racism, hatred and violence. It’s unacceptable & shameful. No room for it in this country.” [SacBee]  And Senator Heller said of the Orange Blossom?  Orange Blossom read one of his specially prepared on-paper ‘clarifications’ and promptly went right back off the rails with his Very Fine People.

Senator Heller’s spine made a brief reappearance in mid-June during the height of the Trump manufactured immigrant family crisis.  Thirteen Senators, among them Senator Dean Heller, wrote to the Mis-administration saying, in part:

“We support the administration’s efforts to enforce our immigration laws, but we cannot support implementation of a policy that results in the categorical forced separation of minor children from their parents,” the Republican senators wrote.

“We therefore ask you to halt implementation of the Department’s zero tolerance policy while Congress works out a solution that enables faster processing of individuals who enter our country illegally without requiring the forced, inhumane separation of children from their parents,” the senators continued. [TheHill]

Good. Now insert the following search terms into Google: “Nevada Senator Visits Border.” Who shows up in the search results?  Senator Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-NV).  During a June fundraiser with the *president, who got the crowd to chant “Build The Wall,” Senator Heller, “by contrast, spoke for under three minutes and didn’t mention immigration or the separation of children from parents at the border.” [LATimes]  Senator Cortez-Masto and Representative Jacky Rosen visited the border, Senator Heller’s spine went missing yet again.

This is the third instance, in a third major issue, in which Senator Heller has demonstrated his reluctance to take a firm stand — and we might note there’s a tendency on his part to take flexible positions on many other issues —  and to stick to it, even when there is an obvious and palpable reason to STAND for a crucial American attribute.  Charlottesville, Immigration, and now the Helsinki Debacle…strike one, strike two, strike three.

This might explain the following tidbit from the RJ? “Since announcing her candidacy in July 2017, Rosen has outraised Heller $8.3 million to $5.3 million.”  Granted Heller has a cash-on-hand advantage, but fundraising is often a measure of enthusiasm, and it’s hard to get enthusiastic about waffles. They are nice, you can serve them for breakfast, brunch, or lunch, put just about anything on them and they’ll soak it up; it’s just hard to get all that thrilled about them.

Comments Off on Waffles Heller, Heller Waffles

Filed under Heller, Nevada politics, Politics

He Worked Very Hard and We Wish Him Well…

I’d really hoped not to hear this kind of phrasing coming from the White House today, but… He did it, the President of the United State said of domestic abuser Rob Porter, “He worked very hard and we wish him well.”  (MSNBC) No, that really doesn’t indicate that this Oval Office takes violence against women all that seriously.  I truly don’t care if he was the best paper pusher in the entire Milky Way Galaxy.  He’s a serial domestic abuser.  I really don’t care if he was the best filter of paper and proposals in the Universe. He’s a serial domestic abuser.   And, the President* didn’t take the opportunity to even mention violence against women.  What he said about a serial domestic abuser was that (a) he was gone and (b) the White House wished him well.

Domestic violence is a serious issue in Nevada.  The Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence issued a report of 2016 statistics (pdf) on the subject, and it’s discouraging to see that there were a total of 64,457 contacts made to authorities/agencies about domestic and sexual violence during that calendar year.  11,197 were repeated contacts.  There were 24,567 “bednights” or overnight shelter provided to adults, and 1,411 provided to children.  There were 13,589 incidents reported to police, resulting in 6,433 arrests.  There were 5,128 cases in which the police were not contacted. There were 23,777 cases in which it is unknown if law enforcement was contacted.  Additionally, there were 18,164 cases in which the referral for possible action is unknown.

It’s not like domestic abuse and sexual violence are issues we can separate from other criminal acts or address with fast/quick solutions. The problem is cyclical:’

“Abuse tends to occur in cycles. It does not just go away and tends to get worse over time. Domestic violence and intimate partner violence typically, but not always, follows a pattern. There is a period of tension building; there is an episode of violence; and there is a time calm, or a “honeymoon” (Hancock, 2012). Research suggests the more severe the violence, the more chronic it is and the more likely it is to worsen over time (Lipsky et al., 2012).”

There is a direct link between domestic abuse and mass shootings:

“…mass shooters killed a partner or family member in 54% of shootings—which are defined as incidents in which four or more people are killed by guns. Between January 2009 and December 2016, 422 people were killed in domestic violence disputes; more than 40% of these people were children.” [Fortune]

And women are the most likely victims:

 “Over half of all homicides (55.3%) were IPV-related; 11.2% of victims of IPV-related homicide experienced some form of violence in the month preceding their deaths, and argument and jealousy were common precipitating circumstances. Targeted IPV prevention programs for populations at disproportionate risk and enhanced access to intervention services for persons experiencing IPV are needed to reduce homicides among women.”  (IPV = Intimate Partner Violence) [CDC]

Yes, to that last point because the 5th leading cause of death for women between the ages of 18-44 is homicide.  So, we should be taking the issue of domestic and sexual violence seriously because it’s a leading cause of death among women in the prime of their lives, because it’s part of an escalating cycle of violence, one that too often leads to the kinds of mass shooting which shock the senses.  And, no, I do not wish the perpetrators “well.” I wish for police intervention, legal consequences, the collection of comprehensive statistics, the development and implementation of prevention programs, and the closing of the “boyfriend loophole” for the procurement of firearms.

No more — no more excuses, no more attempts at amelioration, no more minimizing the problem, no more … Time’s Up.

Comments Off on He Worked Very Hard and We Wish Him Well…

Filed under Politics, Women's Issues

Memory, Convenient and Otherwise

Some of the rationalizations for supporting accused child molester and Mall Troll Roy Moore are truly interesting.  The lamest fall into the “I wasn’t there, so I don’t know” category.  Give. Me. A. Break.

I wasn’t there, but I’m reasonably sure Qin Shi Huang was the first emperor of a unified China in 220 B.C.

I wasn’t there but I’m certain that on January 27, 1880 Thomas Edison received a patent for an incandescent light bulb.

I wasn’t there but I do know that on July 21, 2016 Roger Ailes left Fox  News under a billowing cloud of sexual harassment allegations.

So, give me a break — personal knowledge is not necessary to establish the truth of a situation.  Credibility is required, and if the women’s’ reports are credible then we can reasonably conclude that impropriety took place.  Those who have decided to discount the credibility of the women’s accusations do so at their own risk.  The first risk is that they are denying evidence which conflicts with their ideological bent. This isn’t what the world calls rational.  The second is that they are discounting evidence which in other circumstances they would admit (as if the accused was a member of another political party) thus rendering themselves hypocritical. Third, there’s a risk of discounting all allegations of sexual misconduct, as if men were never responsible for sexual harassment — this is painfully close to the “she made me do it” excuse.

We’ve had some problems with this third excuse over time, usually falling into the She Was Asking For It — category of justification.  She was dressing too provocatively.  She was moving on me.  She was where she wasn’t supposed to be if she were a nice girl.  No. This isn’t how it works.  Even though several courts in times past have allowed this defense.  That it was once a mainstay of male rationalization doesn’t make it so in the 21st century.  That bus left the station years ago.

However,  worst consequences are for the once proud Republican Party.  The Party of Everett Dirksen, Robert Dole, and Ronald Reagan is now the party of Donald Trump, Roy Moore, and Steve Bannon.  The Party that ran on family values and personal responsibility now supports those whose values are highly questionable and whose sense of responsibility comes to a screeching halt when they are called to account.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics

The Age Old Problem

It’s getting more difficult to discuss sexual misconduct allegations, perhaps because we’ve not addressed the important question Ruth Marcus ask in her column today:

The national debate over sexual harassment and sexual assault has reached an important and precarious moment as it shifts from what behavior is acceptable to what punishment is warranted. Having under-reacted for too long, are we now at risk of overreacting?

She has made a salient point.  Is James A. disqualified from advancement because he patted a female fanny in times gone by? Is David B. disqualified from elected office because he has a documented history of advances on underage girls?  Must Kevin C. resign because three women accuse him of improper behavior in the office? Must William D. resign because he settled one or more allegations of improper behavior out of court with non-disclosure agreements attached?

In short, the more women share their stories, the more complex the situation becomes because every situation is as different as the individuals and situation involved.  Each of us is going to have to establish a framework for judgments, and there are some areas in which we should be in general agreement.

No one wants to be humiliated, objectified, and victimized.  If someone’s behavior has that effect on someone else, then it’s bad. Period.  Now, comes the hard part — how bad?

There’s Harvey Weinstein, Roy Moore, and Donald Trump level bad.  Multiple women have leveled multiple credible allegations of sexual misconduct, some of which fall into the illegal activity category, against these men.  And, now, as Washington Post columnist Marcus suggests, how do we evaluate other, less serious charges?

Do we toss all the pigs to the wolves?  Must every Congressman, Senator, or Staffer resign at the first instance in which an allegation is offered?  Does every producer, reporter, business executive have to pack up the office after being charged in the court of public opinion? The One Size Fits All response certainly appears to simplify the problem but in fact may serve to make the overall situation more complicated.

No one should argue that a woman must feel any form of discomfort about coming forward to complain about crude behavior.  Period.  However, What does she do in a Zero Tolerance workplace about the co-worker at the office party who’s had at least one too many from the open bar and did something for which he apologized profusely the next morning?  Does it depend on “what he did?” On what he said afterwards? On how credible she finds his apology?

Perhaps one way to consider the problem is to operate from the premise: Believe the Women.  If she’s not satisfied, I’m probably not either.  If she is satisfied with the resulting actions, I’m probably OK with the solution.  I do reserve a modicum of skepticism for those whose allegations appear specious or whose persistence is all out of proportion to the available facts.  (I’m thinking here of a woman whose allegations were once dismissed by Ken Starr.)

I do advocate for a woman’s right to choose when to report instances of sexual harassment or misconduct.  It should be HER call.  Questions of assault, rape, and abuse are in another category in my estimation — these are legal issues in which the standards of the legal system should apply.  Meanwhile….

What do we do with garden variety creeps?  The fellows who don’t make physical contact but who can clear the room simply by being in it.  What do we do with the man who only refers applications from men to HR for follow up interviews?  What do we think of men who are perfectly comfortable with the belief that men should earn more than women for the same job because he’s supposed to be “bringing home the bacon?”

There’s one solution I think will work to mitigate the problems — hire more women, select more women, elect more women.  Then I await the day when some fellow in the interview waiting room worries that his suit may make him look fatter….

Comments Off on The Age Old Problem

Filed under Politics, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

The Power and the Vainglory: Roy Moore’s Sad Mad Power Grab

American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson described Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, without ever meeting him: “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”   The expression actually goes back a bit further in English literature, appearing as “counting spoons” in James Boswell’s The Life of Samuel Johnson.

“Why Sir, if the fellow does not think as he speaks he is lying; and I see not what honour  he can propose to himself from having the character of a liar.  But if he does really think there is no distinction between virtue and vice, why, Sir when he leaves our houses let us count our spoons.”

The metaphor has lost some of its relevancy in an age wherein table spoons come not just in pewter or silver, but in aluminum, stainless steel, and various kinds of plastic.  However, it holds its force as a description of the prudent response to voluble protestations of (self) righteousness.

Did we not wonder why the man was so vehemently anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-modernity?  Why he insisted beyond all reason that a massive monument to the Ten Commandments be installed in his courthouse?   Most counties are satisfied with a smaller, more tasteful, monument located on a nice piece of manicured lawn.  Not so Mr. Moore.  Most public officers were, at least grudgingly, willing to abide by the law of the land on gay marriage.  Not so Mr. Moore.

Most people in this country are willing to tolerate a range of beliefs, even if such beliefs are personally objectionable.  Not so Mr. Moore, who is essentially an eliminationist.  Those with whom he disagrees should be silenced.  Those of whom he does not approve must be incarcerated.   Some scholars have associated the Nazi eliminationism with native antisemitism.  The combination was violently toxic and heinously lethal.  Moore espouses a particularly vehement hatred of Muslims — they are to be excluded from public office and civil society.  Moore has decried that the “government started creating new rights in 1965.”  The date is instructive.  The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, and the decision in Griswold v. Connecticut was rendered in 1965.  Mr. Moore is nothing new on the face of the earth. He’s as old as patriarchal tribal conflict.

He’s as old as the theories of female responsibility for leading First Man astray, as old as the opponents of the cults of Isis, Aphrodite, and  Mother Earth.  There’s no single point of origin for misogyny, but Mr. Moore can find plenty of carefully selected Biblical passages to buttress his prejudices.  We could also assemble a number of equally carefully selected passages to oppose his views.  The common denominator for these views precipitate down to Power.  Not necessarily sex, but power of one gender over another.

This isn’t about a cultural issue, although support for Mr. Moore can be utilized as a “political wedge issue,” under the category of Culture Wars.  However, no matter how it’s implemented, it’s still not a cultural issue. It’s still about good old fashioned garden variety power.

Why else would a 30+ year old man seek the attentions of teenage girls?  Why else would a man grope? Not because it’s a form of play — but because it’s a display of power.  And that’s the last thing Mr. Moore needs to possess — more power over anyone, anywhere, anytime.  The good people of Alabama deserve better representation than that which is so sadly demonstrated by Mr. Moore.

Comments Off on The Power and the Vainglory: Roy Moore’s Sad Mad Power Grab

Filed under Nativism, Politics, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

It’s Always About the Girls?

ESPN’s Jemele Hill posts her truth:  Donald Trump is a white supremacist.  What do we get from the lectern in the White House? This is a “fire-able offense.”  Hillary Clinton goes on her book tour.  What do we get?  She’s blaming every one but herself — when in fact she admits some 35 mistakes for which she took responsibility.  What does the occupant of the White House do?  He re-tweets a bit of anti-Semitic commentary with a GIF of Hillary Clinton being hit with a golf ball.  It would be tempting to oversimplify this, but there is a pattern:  Women being hit, women being fired, or women being otherwise assaulted or attacked is acceptable. There’s a word for this — misogynist.

These would be part of the background noise associated with the current administration, except that the misogyny is part of the administration’s policy, witness the Department of Education’s reversal of Title IX protections for those who report campus assaults.

“Perhaps it should come as no surprise that this latest undermining of survivors’ rights is taking place under the administration of a president who has bragged about sexually assaulting women. An administration in which the acting assistant secretary of education for civil rights, Candice Jackson, suggested, in July (she later apologized), that for “90 percent” of campus sexual assault allegations the complainants regretted having sex, but weren’t actually sexually assaulted.” [WaPo]

So, are we surprised that the Department of Education is dialing back the protections for assault survivors on college campuses?  If we are we shouldn’t be.  The signals have been there all along.

We couldn’t really miss the images of the President barging ahead out of a vehicle, leaving his wife to exit on her own, or the images of him climbing the steps to Air Force One again leaving his wife to mount the stairs without assistance.  Or, images of him holding the umbrella over his own head, leaving his wife to stride in his wake perhaps hoping to get some protection from the rain.  If he will treat his wife with this casual disregard, what can we expect of his attitude toward women he doesn’t know?  Why would we be surprised if he tweets a GIF showing a woman being hit by a golf ball?

So, what do Jemele Hill and Hillary Clinton have in common?  One’s black, the other is white.  One is an experienced politician, the other is a sportscaster and analyst.  One was born in 1975, the other married Bill Clinton in 1975.  One attended Michigan State University, the other attended Wellesley.  What makes them targets from the White House lectern?  They are women.

Comments Off on It’s Always About the Girls?

Filed under Politics, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

It’s Not 1950 Anymore

Women Workplace Back in the day, those days of uncompromising conformity, women weren’t in the workforce in large numbers. They had been. They were home now, advised by various and sundry home & shelter magazines to “make way for the boys coming home” from World War II.  Conventional wisdom said that nice girls got jobs in secretarial occupations, teaching (mostly elementary), nursing (not so much as physicians), and domestic service.  There were the outliers – the women who wanted to be accountants not simply bookkeepers; the women who wanted to design kitchens not merely cook in them; the women who wanted to be engineers crafting plans for automobiles not just driving the kids to Scout meetings.  However, for too long they remained the outliers.

Job interviews until relatively recently allowed men (who did the hiring) to ask women (who wanted the jobs) to ask about the applicant’s love life – the real question being “How long are you going to be with us before you get married and quit?”  Or, “…until you get in a ‘family way’ and we ‘have to let you go’.”

In a way the 1950’s Rules of the Gender Game were as deleterious to men as to women.  The entire onus of family expenses in white suburbs was on the man.  The ‘little woman’ could work for some ‘pocket money’ but this wasn’t considered completely within the Rules.  It was expected in white circles that African American women would work, after all “they had to,” – but again, not as the doctor, but as the nurse; not as the architect but as the cook.  It was all very domestic.

It was all completely phony.  How did so many women acquire basic  bookkeeping skills? Quite often They were keeping the household accounts.  Clean, launder, cook, and keep track of the mortgage and car payments; make sure the charge accounts were paid and the Green Stamps collected in the books for redemption.

It was all economically counterproductive.  How many elements of technological progress were delayed because a qualified women was passed over in favor of a less qualified man?  How many companies suffered because men were promoted and paid more than many over-qualified women, resulting in less overall productivity?

It was all potentially dangerous.

While the economic onus was placed on the male, the sexual issues came down on the female.  It was her place to “control herself.”  Boys would be boys, after all they just  “sowed wild oats,” but the young ladies – it, nay, IT, was her fault.  She wanted IT. She asked for IT. She deserved IT.  She dressed for IT. She didn’t resist IT. She was in the wrong place, the wrong time, doing the wrong thing and “that’s what happens.”

So, if he lurked around the water cooler making cracks about the fit of her sweater over the bra designed to define and shape the bust…that was also “what happens.”   If he didn’t mind a bit if she bent over to retrieve a file folder… If he wasn’t “really serious” if she showed a bit of cleavage, then she shouldn’t mind either. After all, department store catalogs of the era advised women how to dress to “please the husband,” or to attract one.

If the tenor of the times made the sopranos uncomfortable, gee, it couldn’t be more uncomfortable than those girdles with the hosiery clips attached?  Indeed, most men did treat their wives with respect, their children with courtesy, and their friends wives with civility.  However, that didn’t prevent  or indeed even much shame the troglodytes who delighted in patting fannies and snapping bras.  This activity didn’t go un-noticed but it wasn’t enough to make a ‘real’ man feel discouraged.  And that’s the point.

It isn’t 1950 anymore.  It’s no longer acceptable to opine sourly but quietly that Dodgy Roger at the garage is hassling the women in the office; Dodgy is going to find himself on the wrong end of an HR complaint.  It’s no longer acceptable to ignore Jumpy John’s continual disparagement of his female cohorts … it’s another route to an EEOC investigation.  It’s no longer acceptable to say “that’s his private business,” when men engage in obscenities and vulgarities in the workplace. It’s not business and if it’s in the workplace it’s not private.

The hard fact of life for vulgarian men is that while the general atmosphere of the 1950s allowed men to avoid some of the more quotidian consequences of unseemly behavior – boorishness and obscenity have never really been socially acceptable. To believe that they once were is to indulge in a fantasy past that never truly defined a reality; they are left with residuals which still make life more difficult for women.

To engage that fantasy is to forget that even in the 1950s invitations to a backyard picnic dwindled if the boor didn’t mend his ways; social interactions at church, in public, and in private diminished as the unacceptable behavior increased.   The difference sixty six years later is that real men do understand the meaning of ‘consent,’ and that real men are less accepting of marginal behavior.   Real women are less likely to remain quiet about sexual harassment and assaults, although they are still vilified for speaking out as if the entire burden of proper behavior is still attached to them.

She should have reported it. She should have reported it sooner. She should have reported it to more than family and friends. She should have reported it to the police. She should have …. When the real question should be: Why did HE do it in the first place?

So, no, it’s not 1950 anymore.  1950 wasn’t even what some contemporary boors imagine it to be.  Perhaps the best we can do is continually remind the boorish vulgarians among us that while progress has been made and there’s little room in contemporary society for their antics, we still have a ways to go.

We still have some distance to cover to remove ourselves from the make way for the boys mentality, the admonitions of the catalog sales department that a well fitting sweater could please him or attract him; from the uninformed attitudes that boys should be given more latitude than girls in matters of manners and morality.   I agree with the First Lady, it seems unconscionable that we’re still talking about the basics of human civility.

One of the most interesting questions surrounding our current election season is if we, as a society, are as willing to confront the agents of social aggression as we are to confront foreign acts of aggression?

Comments Off on It’s Not 1950 Anymore

Filed under women, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

Truck Attack on Reno Protesters; Trump Attack on Everyone Else

newspapers 1 ## The lead story on the Reno Gazette Journal website concerns two chubby white guys stalking and then driving a truck through a group of DAPL protesters in downtown Reno.  The two chubbies stopped a short distance away to “give their version of events” to police; fortunately there were no critical injuries sustained by members of the protest group.

## After the Citizens United debacle of a decision is anyone surprised that outside spending is a major feature of the Nevada senate seat race?  RGJ has more details.

## Perhaps it’s a measure of how “safe” the Nevada Congressional District 2 seat has become for Republicans that Mark Amodei is still backing Donald Trump:

“In the past couple of days every negative adjective in the English language has been used to describe Mr. Trump’s comments toward women,” Amodei said in the letter. “Frankly, the harsh criticism and outrage are, in my view, appropriate and deserved. Americans, in the final analysis, expect perfection, leadership, and someone they can be proud of as the leader of their country on the world political stage. At this point, sadly, neither nominee can lay claim to any of those traits.” [RGJ]

Amodei is now the only major Republican in Nevada supporting the Trump candidacy.  Maybe it’s appropriate to ask at this point – precisely WHAT has Secretary Clinton done that puts her even remotely close to the egregious behavior and insult driven campaign waged by the “deplorable” Mr. Trump?

The Benghazi Flap was a GOP manufactured pseudo-scandal upon which the GOP wasted two years and about $7 million dollars to come up with NOTHING.  The “emails” are another exercise in sound and fury signifying nothing.  If Representative Amodei is constructing his false equivalence predicated on these two bits of bombast, it’s a thin reed to grasp for the long run.

For his part, Mr. Trump announces himself unshackled from the Republican Party of which Rep. Amodei is a proud member, and launched one of his almost-patented Tweet Storms overnight.  Thus Representative Amodei places himself in support of the Donald J. Trump Insult-O-Rama:

Trump ChecklistThis isn’t exactly a list upon which to build a credible candidacy? For anyone. 

Comments Off on Truck Attack on Reno Protesters; Trump Attack on Everyone Else

Filed under Amodei, Native Americans, Nevada politics, Politics, Republicans, sexism, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

Clinton Speaks to Issues, Press follows Shiny Objects

Clinton with Kid Since corporate media is fascinated with every little tweet from the Trump Menagerie and every bit of its minutiae which can be hyper-analyzed, it’s left to other platforms to highlight Clinton speeches and their content.  Why am I posting this? Because on the day Clinton outlined major policy proposals on mental health services the national media was all tangled up in an NFL player’s protest and Trump’s publicity stunt trip to Mexico.

So, here’s what we’ve missed in just one subject matter  area – minority outreach.

Minority outreach speeches: July 8, 2016 Clinton Speech to the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Philadelphia PA.  A bit of it:

“As we know, there is clear evidence that African-Americans are much more likely to be killed in police incidents than any other group of Americans. And we know there is too little trust in too many places between police and the communities they are sworn to protect.” Clinton said that good law enforcement officers far outnumber those who are bad and a violent response to violence is not the answer. The protest in Dallas yesterday was peaceful and police were there to monitor the crowds and ensure the protesters’ safety when they were fired upon by a sniper. Clinton spoke about her proposal to invest $1 billion in police training across the county to ensure the safety of law enforcement officers as well as the general public.”

July 14, 2016, League of United Latin American Citizens, Washington DC.

“The choice we make will say a lot about who we are and whether we understand and celebrate the diversity of our country, which makes us all the stronger.”

July 18, 2016, address to the NAACP.

“There is, as you know so well, another hard truth at the heart of this complex matter: Many African-Americans fear the police.” Clinton vowed to work toward bridging the gap between the African American community and local police forces.”

June 4, 2016: Santa Barbara, CA community event focusing on women and families.

“The round table discussion consisted of local officials and representatives. Clinton spoke about a number of her platform points aimed at improving the lives of women and helping families. She spoke about increasing the minimum wage, ensuring that women receive equal pay for equal work, ensuring families have access to affordable childcare, and guaranteeing workers paid family leave.”

June 10, 2016: Planned Parenthood event, Washington DC.

“We know that restricting access doesn’t make women less likely to end a pregnancy. It just makes abortion less safe.  And that then threatens women’s lives.”

June 27, 2016: Rainbow PUSH Coalition event, Chicago, IL.

“Clinton’s primary focus was gun violence and introducing legislation to require background checks for the purchase of a firearm. She spoke about the importance of reducing gun violence saying, “I think saving our children and other people from gun violence is a civil rights issue right now in America.”

May 1, 2016:  Clinton is keynote speaker at the Detroit NAACP dinner.

“During her speech, she spoke about a number of platform topics including criminal justice reform, prison reform, gun control, and the refinancing of student loan debt. Clinton said that she wanted to continue to the progress of the last eight years.”

May 9, 2016: Stone Ridge, VA on women and work/life balance issues.

“She said that raising a family and having a career is harder today than it was when Chelsea was a kid. “Costs are greater, everything from commuting time to feeling like if you take that vacation day, you are going to be viewed as slacking off,” she said. Clinton went on to say that she knew that her proposals would change the current system, but it is important to realize that times have changed. She said, “We need to really start looking at these programs from the lens of what life is like today and not what it was like 50 years ago.”

May 10, 2016:  Lexington and Louisville, KY events on the economy and the family.  Follow this link to the bullet point outline of Clinton’s proposals.

May 22, 2016: Keynote address to the Circle of Mothers Restoration weekend, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

“Something is wrong when so many young people just starting their lives are dying. Something is very wrong, my friends, and this election gives us a chance to keep trying to make it right.”

Mr. Trump seems to have “discovered” minorities very recently?

And then, of course, there was the August 29, 2016 speech on mental health care issues – covered by Politico, the BBC, and PBS.  Those who missed what this was all about please follow this link to the briefing points and policy proposals from the Clinton campaign.

For those not content with beltway media blathering and who want a bit more good old fashioned CONTENT and context in their political discussions, there’s the Briefing Section/Fact Sheets portion of the Clinton Campaign.   As I’ve said before, I’ve given up on the corporate media doing much more than giving Trump free publicity and chasing after twitter streams.  Fortunately in this day and age we can do some of the heavy lifting ourselves without waiting for them to catch up.

Comments Off on Clinton Speaks to Issues, Press follows Shiny Objects

Filed under civil liberties, Clinton, Hillary Clinton, NAACP, Nevada politics, Women's Issues

Trump’s People and Nevada Numbers

Trump demographics chart

I’ve done a bit of violence to the graphic from HuffPollster in order to clarify what we might describe as “Trump People.” Those potential voters described as follows: “Jason McDaniel and Sean McElwee: “[C]ompared to supporters of other Republican candidates in the primary, Trump supporters really dislike many groups in America. For these voters, Trump’s blend of casual racism and muscular nativism is the core of his appeal.” This analysis comes as no particular surprise.   The red line was added to the chart to indicate the half-way point – with scores above 50 indicating that the person being polled had feelings about another group that were generally positive; those with less than 50 had negative feelings about another ethnic or racial group which were generally negative.

Let’s move from left to right on the chart.  Trump People were less likely than other Republicans to have positive feelings about African Americans; they were even less likely to have positive feelings about Hispanic Americans.  As noted in yesterday’s post, approximately 27.8% of Nevadans are of Hispanic or Latino descent, an increase from the 2010 estimate of 26.5%.  [Census] 9.1% of Nevadans are African American, a percentage point increase from the 8.1% level in 2010. [Census

Clark County, the most populous area of the state, has an Hispanic/Latino population of 30.3%, an increase from the 2010 count of 27.8%.  [Census] The second most populous area, Washoe County, is 23.5% Hispanic/Latino of a total 446,903 population, 15.4% of the total state population.  For someone not from Nevada who might be reading this post, Nevada is essentially the Las Vegas Metropolitan area with the Reno/Sparks/Carson City area attached, slightly augmented by lots of miles and miles of very little but miles and miles.  The total state population is 2,890,845 and Clark County accounts for 2,114,801 of that, or 73.2%.  Loathe though we “ruralites” may be to accept it – the fact remains that in order to do well in Nevada statewide elections Clark County is the Grand Prize.

Thus, it’s appropriate to raise the question: How does a candidate who appeals to those who hold tentatively positive to negative views of African American and Hispanic/Latino groups attract voters in the major county which is 9.1% African American and 30.3% Hispanic/Latino?  It really doesn’t sound practical to essentially write off 39.4% of a population.

Trump’s people are more negative than other Republican primary voters when it comes to Muslims.  There have been “minor” increases in the Nevada Muslim population as reported in 2010, both increases in Clark and Washoe counties. [RCMS2010 pdf]  It’s altogether much easier to dislike people one’s never met, and the fact that there is no observable Muslim presence in rural areas may make the Trump appeal more palatable there.  However, “winning” in the rural counties only makes a difference in congressional races – not necessarily in statewide contests.

Only slightly higher on the Trump People’s scale of disliked groups are those who are transgender.  Precise numbers are more difficult to obtain, but estimates of Nevada’s transgender population range from 25,000 to 50,000. [LVRJ]  Using the highest estimate still leaves the total transgender population at 1.7% of the state total.  Again, this makes the transgender population a relatively easy target given the numbers. However, it may also render some of the Trump arguments more difficult, as in trying to explain why a maximum of 1.7% of the state’s population is a significant danger to the remaining 98.3%.

While those who were “supporting another candidate” or were a part of the “average response,” trended above the 50 mark on the chart – Trump people were generally below the line and therefore reported more negative feelings about gays and lesbians.  Again, we are not speaking of a large presence in Nevada, and one that is primarily centered in the  urban areas:

The total LGBT population is currently estimated at 88,005 or about 4% of the state population. [lgbtmap]  And the number in same sex relationships remains a small percentage of the state total population:

“Based on Census 2010, there are 7,140 same-sex couples living in Nevada. These couples were identified in all but one of Nevada’s counties. The majority of same-sex couples are male (53%), accounting for 3,768 couples. There are 3,372 female couples. The average age of individuals in same-sex couples in Nevada is more than four years younger than that of different-sex couples—43.8 and 48.2 years old, respectively.”  [Williams

Again, the Trump People tend to dislike a minority group, which tends to reside in – no elaborate conjecturing required here – the two urban areas of the state – where most of the other voters reside.

Trump People dislike “feminists” a bit more than they report disliking gays and lesbians.  There’s a problem with the definitions which get fuzzier the more individuals are poked and prodded on the subject. The textbook definition is that a feminist is one who believes in the political, social, and economic equality of the sexes.

If we look at national polling on the economic segment of the issue we find 73% of the American population supporting equal pay for equal work, with 64% of the men agreeing to that proposition along with 81% of American women. [AW.org]  The “classic definition” would then place 73% of the American population in the “feminist” category; including 81% of women and 64% of men. 

49.7% of Nevada’s population is female. 50% of the Clark County population is female.  49.7% of the Washoe County population is female.  If national polling among the “Millennials” is any guide then about 30% of Republican women and 10% of Republican men describe themselves as fitting into the feminist category; compared to 43% of independent women/23% of independent men; and, 62% of Democratic women and 32% of Democratic men.   Misogyny is not likely to play well to the independent and Democratic side of the  audience.

These issues are difficult to tease out because it’s a matter of how much misogyny is baked into the numbers, relative to the amount of sexism tossed into the mix.  The person the Trump People are supporting has been labeled sexist [Time]  and a downright misogynist [Slate] and both labels tend to blur into each other’s rhetorical territory.

However,  49.7% of Nevada’s population are more likely to respond positively to a candidate who acknowledges that in this State a woman who holds a full time job is paid on average $35,993 per year while her male counterpart receives $42,294. Meaning that women in Nevada are paid about 85 cents for every dollar paid to men, a pay gap of $6,301. [NP pdf]  A slogan of “equal pay for equal work” would appear to have a better chance of a positive result than railing on about feminist harpies.

There are 29,917 households in Clark County led by females, with no man present; and, 18,420 such households in Washoe County. [SubStats]  Polling back in January 2016 reported some relevant results among this subgroup:

“These women express a desire to support candidates whose policy agenda speaks to their distinct set of economic concerns, including equal pay, college affordability, paid sick days and family leave, and affordable child care. 

Yet, unmarried women also want a candidate who respects and cares for the wellbeing of women and families.  Unmarried women say they are more likely to support a candidate who will protect a woman’s access to reproductive health and birth control; at the same time, they are much less likely to support a candidate who opposes a woman’s right to have an abortion.  And women across the political spectrum outright reject a candidate who disparages women, even if they share policy positions with that candidate.” [AW.org]

In fact, the polling found disparagement was a deal breaker among 91% of Democratic women, 84% of independent women, and 73% of Republican women. [AW.org]  It would seem screeching about Femi-Nazis as “bimbos, fat pigs, slobs, and dogs” as tempting as it might be for some Trump People is counterproductive in the election department.

  Democrats Independents Republicans
January 471,342 234,229 423,308
May 518,124 247,344 452,028

Of course, the most important numbers are those of active voters (remotely equivalent to the likely voter category) and those show an increase of 9.93% in Democratic party registrations from January to May 2016; an increase of 5.68% in non-partisan registrations; and, and increase of 4.56% in Republican registrations.  [NV SoS pdf]

It may  be that the Trump People are not currently well positioned in Nevada’s electoral climate: A message appealing to a small but vocal base fearful and distrustful of minorities, and unfortunately located on the “disparagement” end of the spectrum where women are concerned, doesn’t appear to be all that potentially efficacious in contemporary Nevada politics.

Comments Off on Trump’s People and Nevada Numbers

Filed under gay issues, Nevada politics, Politics, Republicans, Women's Issues