Thanks for posting, heebie.
I guess my question was about me because I've kind of given up on the idea of changing him. But maybe there is some way to influence the moneybags people behind him? I dunno. Thought the Mineshaft might have some creative ideas.
Send him a macaroni mural reading "Fuck You"?
If it doesn't involve white glue, it can't really be "creative".
I wonder which state it is if it isn't the "Pat Toomey hiding from his constituents" state.
5 to 3.
4 to...uh, well, uh, hm.
To cut him some minor slack, what would have been a good answer from him, in the context of his being a non-woman currently running for Congress? That is, you have to figure that he wants you to give him money over the women he's running against, so he can't say "Yes, you're right and this is an important enough issue that you should support one of them, not me."
At that point, (1) isn't a non-sequitur. That is, he has to take the position that candidate's gender isn't an overriding consideration, or he's lost your money right out of the gate. He may have said it badly, but it's a necessary part of any argument he's going to make.
So, (2) is, "I can win, and neither of the female candidates can," which is, if true (and that depends on the facts, but it could be true) not a terrible argument. And (3) is "But I'm generally on your side on this issue, I just don't think it's a reason for me now to step aside in favor of a woman."
The delivery might have made it bad, but the substance doesn't sound that bad to me unless you're pretty sure that he should have stepped aside in favor of one of the women in the race. At which point that's what he should have done, but what he says about it doesn't matter much.
That's going to take a great deal of macaroni.
Have you considered making a jpg of some variation of this clearly reasoned and concisely stated description of a problem and posting it to twitter, addressing him and maybe some supporting organizations?
The delivery might have made it bad
He's a politician. It's all delivery. He should have primarily echoed and agreed with President Stately's concern, "I completely agree! If we are the party that fights for women's rights, we need major women representation!" and then segued into why, despite being male, he's the best candidate in this specific context.
Then he could have mansplained feminism.
That said, my immediate reaction is "This is why you can't have nice things." This guy has a chance to beat a Republican in a competitive district* and you're essentially withdrawing support because his priorities aren't perfectly aligned with yours on one issue?
*Assuming this based on "close partisan split".
I wouldn't go that far. Like, if you wanted to give money to one of the women in the race because you want to see a woman in your congressional delegation, that would seem completely legit to me, assuming she was generally reasonable.
I just wouldn't judge the man not having a better answer for why he should get your money over a woman than "I think my chances of winning are better than hers." What else is he going to say?
I want a lower bar for people from hypothetical states full of assholes but not so many assholes as to be politically irredeemable.
More constructively: "Hi, $POLITIBEAST, I really appreciate your response. However, your tone and content gave the impression you don't think this issue is particularly important, and don't share my concern. I know from your previous actions, such as those you mention, that in fact you are concerned, so this is a really unfortunate failure of communication. I realize from inside the $LOCALBELTWAY this issue might not seem very pressing, but to people like myself - your constituents and natural supporters - it's actually very important indeed. I look forward to your response, and sending you more money! Yours, STATELY."
16.2: Comity.
16.1: I don't think that would be legit, in a competitive race, if the woman isn't a credible candidate.* But there's much devil in the details. Like if the women candidates are going to lose the primary anyway, so your support is just moving the Overton window costlessly, no problem. What's bugging me is the "token donation" line. It implies Stately is effectively withdrawing support from the only viable Democrat in a competitive race.
*Unless that's what you mean by "generally reasonable".
I have a mental scale, calibrated in fractional Keith Rothfuses, as to how big an asshole you can be and still get my backing for Congress so long as you are a Democrat. Right now I'm at 1/4th of a Rothfus. In a better world, but one that is still possible, that might go to 1/8th.
To cut him some minor slack, what would have been a good answer from him, in the context of his being a non-woman currently running for Congress? That is, you have to figure that he wants you to give him money over the women he's running against, so he can't say "Yes, you're right and this is an important enough issue that you should support one of them, not me."
A good answer would have been: "You're right. It's totally unacceptable that our state has zero women representing us in Congress. I think I'm the best candidate for this particular race, and I'm the best positioned to win, because X, Y, and Z.* But I promise that I'm campaigning/fundraising/FITB right now for women in _____ and when I get to Congress I plan to ______."
I certainly don't expect him to step aside. ANY politician thinks they're the best candidate, or they wouldn't run. I just expected him to acknowledge WHY this issue might be important to his constituents and that he was actually doing something about it.
I didn't put this in the OP, but I actually served him a complete softball on my first followup -- I said, "Let's fast-forward and assume you get elected to Congress. How would you tackle this issue going forward?" And he was totally lame about it.
* And, yes, (2) is a perfectly reasonable point and a fine argument. I found (3) annoying because when he said it came across as desultory. I had little sense that he actually cared or thought it was important.
10: Can't; day job complications.
11: Exactly.
15: I didn't withdraw my support. I gave him the exact same amount of money I did last time. I just didn't increase my donation, and I'm not in a position to give anywhere close to the max. I wrapped up our conversation by specifically saying "I realize you have to go raise money from folks who have a lot more to give than I do" so he wouldn't feel obliged to keep talking to me to confirm my relatively paltry donation.
To be clear, this is a PRIMARY election. I will support absolutely any Democrat breathing in the general election.
If I haven't heard about a challenger to Rothfus by now, that's probably not a good sign, is it?
23: That's easy. I never give anybody money for a primary.
Like if the women candidates are going to lose the primary anyway, so your support is just moving the Overton window costlessly, no problem.
IMO that is an insufficiently big-picture view. Yes, this one Congressional race is important, and yes, I want a Democrat to win it. But all of the literature says that in general, candidates often run and lose a few times before they run and win, and that having a donor base is important in persuading women candidates to stick it out and give it another try in the future.
What's bugging me is the "token donation" line. It implies Stately is effectively withdrawing support from the only viable Democrat in a competitive race.
I gave the same donation as always. I just didn't increase it. And it's a primary. Let him go fundraise from rich white guys. There are plenty of them in his district (which I don't even live in any more, but my family does and they'll probably vote for him).
I just wouldn't judge the man not having a better answer for why he should get your money over a woman than "I think my chances of winning are better than hers." What else is he going to say?
I'm totally judging him, but not really for why he should get my money instead of a woman -- more for why he didn't have a coherent answer as to why (and how) he cares about/would respond to the issue of lack of women in Congress.
18 is not bad.
Except on the macaroni. That's just tasteless.
candidates often run and lose a few times before they run and win, and that having a donor base is important in persuading women candidates to stick it out and give it another try in the future.
Interesting. But where can your candidates run and lose where losing doesn't have serious consequences?
In primaries? Against incumbents where no one was likely to win?
This guy has a chance to beat a Republican in a competitive district* and you're essentially withdrawing support because his priorities aren't perfectly aligned with yours on one issue?
I'm not saying withdraw your support. I'm saying Pres Stately should be biting enough that it registers with him and he notes for next time that he might piss off a constituent if he's not ready with the empathy on this question.
I'm saying: help shape him into a better candidate.
26: Still trying to cut him slack -- that is, if he's plausibly going to be the candidate and hopefully the Rep, it'd be best if it were possible to stay engaged with him. Do you think the bobble is forgivable in context -- that is, you hit him with the inquiry in a context where a wholehearted investment in the proposition that there should be more women running for Congress as Democrats really does sound like "so you shouldn't give me money."
Which means, I guess, that I wouldn't give up on changing him, unless you have more of a reason to believe he's useless than that one conversation. Maybe write again, identifying yourself as a donor, and specifically framing it as "I'm not asking you to justify your existence as a male candidate -- I've already given you money. I'm asking what your plan is to bring women into the congressional delegation generally," and see if he responds with anything satisfying.
11 seems about right.
1. If he ran in the primary in good faith and won, it may be because his women opponents are unelectable for some good reason, like they're barking mad or they're next on Robert Mueller's list after he's done with Trump or something. Polspeak: "I have the greatest respect for my opponents, but I believe that under the present circumstances their contribution would be more valuable outside Congress."
2. If he ran in the primary because he was sponsored by a vape filled room full of old white men who wouldn't vote for a woman if they were judging Miss America. Polspeak: "I entirely agree with your concerns, but in order to further the chances of women politicians in this District, I believe that my best chance to use my influence as an ally is from within Congress."
NB. Neither of these statements would have any semantic value, but since when has that mattered to candidates?
31 is right, but since most positions in the US require residence in the relevant district, we don't have any much opportunities as one would like to develop farm teams. We're certainly lacking relative to the UK, which has a tradition of running youngins against guaranteed-to-win incumbents. (Also, the requirements to run for MP are very lax. Being a citizen of Canada is sufficient.)
You don't have to live in your district as a Rep, do you? I think people usually do, but I didn't think there was a rule.
You're right. I'm surprised, since I think we had a very brutal primary between two incumbents in the suburbs 'round here a few years ago after the last redistricting. But maybe that was just due to the total number of districts decreasing?
Another approach the candidate could have taken: "I agree - we need to get more women elected to state and local offices so that we have a deeper bench of credible women candidates to draw on in the future. Have you thought about what women might be good candidates for the atate legislature office I'll be vacating if I win?"
37: You're right--I totally misremembered the requirements. You have to be an inhabitant of the state and 7 year+ citizen.
Any good politician, especially a Dem, should have a good, smooth answer for this question.
Absolutely. We need more female candidates. We have to invest in building a good field of female candidates. The best way to to start electing local females to build their chances for election. My chief of staff/Policy Director/______ is a female who would be a good candidate for office. So is______ in this position. So is _______. But, Im the best candidate to win in this primary.
Further answer:
"My interns and legislative assistants are 50 percent women. I want to give them the experience so that they can be leaders. I would love to know women who you think we should be grooming. Got any suggestions?"
Seems to me you ought to send him an email telling him you've supported him in the past, and will in the future, but you didn't think he'd really given enough thought to the question. Our society has a problem, and he needs to (a) be more forthright in admitting that, and (b) more aggressive in looking for solutions.
If he's worth even a token contribution, he'll work at doing better.
For our state lege, if the district is completely in a single county, than you can live anywhere in the county. If the district crosses county lines, you have to live in the district.
The state party is running a 'blue bench' program, trying to get Dems to run for all the lesser boards and stuff. It's a game effort, imo, but I'm not sure it'll amount to much. In a blue county like mine, we have Dem candidates for everything. In deep red counties, there's a reason Dems don't feel like taking the time and spending the money to run for something. And it isn't that it just never occurred to anyone.
We have an older effort, the get pro-choice women to run for stuff. Carol's list. Carol is a very formidable person.
She may also have the best collection of Yankees memorabilia in the Northern Rockies.
43:
Agreed. "If he's worth even a token contribution". This is what I was wondering. Is he worth it? Or are you resources better spent on other races? Doesn't sound like he earned it.
In Virginia, we have a number of state legislature spots that are competitive. Republican Bob Marshall is horrible. One of the 3 Dems in the primary called me up for money. He seemed great, but I wasn't going to give until he won the primary. He lost to Danica Roem who seems to be a great candidate. So I am glad I didn't give. http://danicaroem.ngpvanhost.com
Also, the requirements to run for MP are very lax. Being a citizen of Canada is sufficient.
For an example of the risks of going the other direction, check out the absolutely hilarious constitutional crisis engulfing Australia right now.
47: I laughed so hard when I read that. No legislator should ever write a law that allows a third party to unilaterally limit your citizens' abilities, but it's particularly idiotic given the historic close ties between Australia and NZ.
I suppose it isn't surprising, given they took until the 70s to learn that Governor-Generals are supposed to be figureheads.
white glue dries clear now, so it can either represent all races or ghosts and ectoplasm. creative like in that movie where patrick swayze helps throw pottery.