She obviously did some things right, structural advantages or no. She may have done the best anyone could expect given the phenomenon she was up against. I can't say for sure what caused her comeback in New Hampshire or her huge margins in Appalachian states.
But the poor strategic planning and burning through cash are harder to forgive than any inevitable slip-ups or even war votes. Thinking California was winner-take-all? Deemphasizing caucus states, where activists are exponentially more important? There is no doubt those factors significantly hurt her campaign, and they were easily avoidable.
Mr. Charisma either. If the interviewer looms too large, the guest's responses get drowned out.
I'm not sure how Todd would perform as an interviewer either. He does seem to understand the important parts of any political issue. Whether he can draw out substantive responses from guests is another mattter.
Mitchell will get it. Everybody seems to like her and the press are an incestuous lot (see Russert, ad nauseum tributes to).
Maddow would be good, but I actually think Chuck Todd could be better. She does her homework, but she's a little too tempted to be snarky when it's not called for. Todd is one of the few journalists who is incisive enough to challenge my way of thinking. I believe he tries harder to be fair to his interviewees and is better at forecasting what will actually happen.
you're saying she's a poor judge of character and/or talent. So, in a broader sense, not very good at running a campaign.
Did you realize this when you wanted Hillary Clinton to be president?
1. Big fundraising network
Huge reservoir of electoral goodwill caused by her husband being the first repeat Dem president since Roosevelt.
100+ super endorsement head start from the get-go
Near universal name recognition.
A couple of paranoid advisors can't reverse structural advantages like that on their own. Maybe Clinton fans could entertain the possibility that she's simply not a very good politician. I've come to accept that myself as a diehard Kerry loyalist, incidentally.
Theoretically, female representation in government should be
FRG = I x E
I: Overall relative Interest and commitment of females in running for public office.
E: Average Efficiency of campaigns run by women compared to men. If we can assume women campaign as well as men do (measured simply in terms of winning elections), this would be equal to one.
If reliable studies can show that women are just as committed as men to running and that they are as good at it, then 50% would be the ideal (not necessarily 52%, as I believe the imbalance is moslty due to life expectancy disparity (more elderly women than men and the elderly seldom run).
Unfortunately, I believe it's impossible to judge the quality of a campaign effectively (remember the primary fights and lack of consensus as to why Obama won). We do know women can run effective campaings (Palin '06, Kagan '08) and really crappy ones (Townsend '02, Dole '08).
Short answer: unknowable. It's quite possible that it should be higher than 15%. The place to start is trying to guage relative interest, and finding ways to overcome psychological barriers. But I believe trying to attain an arbitrary target is wrong and counterproductive.
was the "equitable, balanced and fair" conclusion. I'm not questioning the numbers, I'm questionig the interpretation. Having political representation match overall demographics should not be conflated with fairness or equity.
with striving for 52% representation for its own sake.
You're presuming that:
1) Women, overall, are as good at running and serving in office as men are, which I believe is true.
2) The desire to run for public office and the willingness to put up with all the stress and shenanigans of the job is equal between the sexes. I strongly suspect that it's not.
Why are there so few male nursing students and kindergarten teachers? Why is the percentage of women in engineering schools so low? There are substantial difference between sexes in terms of academic preferences. I don't see why politics couldn't have the same selection bias by gender. Which is not to say women shouldn't be encouraged to enter public service or run for office; I'm all for that. My point is that women being "underrepresented" in electoral office (or overrepresented, as the case may be someday) is not a shortcoming in itself.
There's another angle to this social phenomena, namely that female-dominated professions tend to pay less for equal levels of education and workload. But that only means nurses should get paid more and MBAs less, not that we need big scolarships for male nursing students or female MBAs.
Incidentally, I'm perfectly fine with a discussion about parity, hence my commenting. I simply don't see the idea of "parity" the same way you do.
an "electoral glass ceiling" is keeping women at or below the 25 per cent mark, restricting women to less than half of the seats that would be theirs in a democracy committed to balanced, equitable and fair representation.
is WRONG, and a misinterpretation of what constitues fairness. It is a gender-based equivalent of applying both "affirmative action" and a quota system to political representation. I don't care if the % of women holding political office is 20% or 80%. Women will achieve true parity when they are elected independently of their gender, not because we're trying to compensate for historical injustices.
Trying to mach political representation with demographic breakdowns ignores selection bias and only encourages identity politics. Equal opportunity and equal treatment should be the goal for women in politics, not a 52-48 split.
This article speaks to the issue much better than current gender statistics ever could.