Current Affairs The 2020 United States Presidential Election
- Thread starter riddick
- Start date
- Status
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
The NYU theatre school decided to test the misogyny question with a role reversal:
What if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Had Swapped Genders?
A restaging of the presidential debates with an actress playing Trump and an actor playing Clinton yielded surprising results.
Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.
Together, they developed Her Opponent, a production featuring actors performing excerpts from each of the three debates exactly as they happened—but with the genders switched. Salvatore cast fellow educational theatre faculty Rachel Whorton to play “Brenda King,” a female version of Trump, and Daryl Embry to play “Jonathan Gordon,” a male version of Hillary Clinton, and coached them as they learned the candidates’ words and gestures.
But the lessons about gender that emerged in rehearsal turned out to be much less tidy. What was Jonathan Gordon smiling about all the time? And didn’t he seem a little stiff, tethered to rehearsed statements at the podium, while Brenda King, plainspoken and confident, freely roamed the stage? Which one would audiences find more likeable?
The two sold-out performances of Her Opponent took place on the night of Saturday, January 28, just a week after President Trump’s inauguration and the ensuing Women’s March on Washington. “The atmosphere among the standing-room-only crowd, which appeared mostly drawn from academic circles, was convivial, but also a little anxious,” Alexis Soloski, a New York Times reporter who attended the first performance, observed. “Most of the people there had watched the debates assuming that Ms. Clinton couldn’t lose. This time they watched trying to figure out how Mr. Trump could have won.”
Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.
We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.
PS - Sorry for all the long words, @Prevenger17 ! Here's a pretty picture instead, just for you xx
What if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Had Swapped Genders?
A restaging of the presidential debates with an actress playing Trump and an actor playing Clinton yielded surprising results.
Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.
Together, they developed Her Opponent, a production featuring actors performing excerpts from each of the three debates exactly as they happened—but with the genders switched. Salvatore cast fellow educational theatre faculty Rachel Whorton to play “Brenda King,” a female version of Trump, and Daryl Embry to play “Jonathan Gordon,” a male version of Hillary Clinton, and coached them as they learned the candidates’ words and gestures.
But the lessons about gender that emerged in rehearsal turned out to be much less tidy. What was Jonathan Gordon smiling about all the time? And didn’t he seem a little stiff, tethered to rehearsed statements at the podium, while Brenda King, plainspoken and confident, freely roamed the stage? Which one would audiences find more likeable?
The two sold-out performances of Her Opponent took place on the night of Saturday, January 28, just a week after President Trump’s inauguration and the ensuing Women’s March on Washington. “The atmosphere among the standing-room-only crowd, which appeared mostly drawn from academic circles, was convivial, but also a little anxious,” Alexis Soloski, a New York Times reporter who attended the first performance, observed. “Most of the people there had watched the debates assuming that Ms. Clinton couldn’t lose. This time they watched trying to figure out how Mr. Trump could have won.”
Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.
We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.
PS - Sorry for all the long words, @Prevenger17 ! Here's a pretty picture instead, just for you xx
Last edited:
So was on a conference call with folks in Ohio earlier today. Best news I got all day until Ebepton stomped Fleetwood (despite Pickford being a moron).
Dem activists on the ground are being supported by Ohio Never Trumpers and sharing information between them to sway independents and persuadable Republicans. Obama may have won Ohio in 2012 but I haven't heard this kind of energy from Ohio since 2008. They are convinced Ohio is in play. And apparently the POTUS isn't spending money there.
Dem activists on the ground are being supported by Ohio Never Trumpers and sharing information between them to sway independents and persuadable Republicans. Obama may have won Ohio in 2012 but I haven't heard this kind of energy from Ohio since 2008. They are convinced Ohio is in play. And apparently the POTUS isn't spending money there.
Tir Eoghain Blue
Player Valuation: £500k
Thanks for the clarification. I have no problems with that, especially for small amounts of marijuana for personal use versus drug distribution.
Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg and his team have raised more than $16 million to pay the court fines and fees of nearly 32,000 Black and Hispanic Florida voters with felony convictions, an effort aimed at boosting turnout for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
The money will fund a program organized by the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition to pay the fines, fees and restitution costs for former prisoners who are already registered to vote in Florida but barred by law from participating in the election because of those outstanding debts.
Bloomberg, who has committed at least $100 million to electing Biden in the state, raised the money from individuals and foundations over the past week, his advisers said. He saw the donations as a more cost-effective way of adding votes to the Democratic column than investing money to persuade voters who already have the right to vote, a Bloomberg memo said.
However it could not be clearer to be that votes are being bought based on his own memo. Desperation and despicable behavior
The law preventing the franchise for felons was upheld due to court fines/costs being a legitimate factor. If the fines are being paid and there is still objection then what is the real objection? There is no requirement from Bloomberg that those whose fines are paid actually vote or that they vote for anyone in particular.
Matt Gaetz can threaten investigation and pretend what Bloomberg is doing is illegal but he's blowing hot air.
sdk
Player Valuation: £35m
The return of suffrage to felons in Florida was granted through popular referendum. The GOP legislature then added an ex-post-facto set of extra hurdles, poll tax style, that vox populi did not call for. So who's acting in desperation here?
Bloomberg's presumably hoping to "buy votes" but all he can do is pay fines. The people regaining their suffrage will be casting their votes for whom they see fit.
Tir Eoghain Blue
Player Valuation: £500k
Please read the article as quoted
Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg and his team have raised more than $16 million to pay the court fines and fees of nearly 32,000 Black and Hispanic Florida voters with felony convictions, an effort aimed at boosting turnout for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
The donation is for one reason and one reason only, to buy black and Hispanic votes for the Democratic Party. The article clearly states this. They will of course vote for the group that is paying their fines. Lets be realistic and not sugarcoat it. When someone makes large political contributions to either the Democrat or Republican Party, there is always a caveat or they have ulterior means.
Tir Eoghain Blue
Player Valuation: £500k
Tir Eoghain Blue
Player Valuation: £500k
“We have identified a significant vote share that requires a nominal investment,” the memo read. “The data shows that in Florida, Black voters are a unique universe unlike any other voting bloc, where the Democratic support rate tends to be 90%-95%.”
This is quoted by the Washington Post which historically left leaning. As stated Buying the Vote.
This is quoted by the Washington Post which historically left leaning. As stated Buying the Vote.
You may state this ad nauseum but doesn't make it true.
The people of FL voted for a reversal of policy. The GOP Legislature and Governor put up a roadblock to the wishes of the people of FL. Why? Money? Well, that's now taken care of for some. So what is the remaining objection?
The issue you should have is with the GOP disenfranchising people and their motive for doing so.
sdk
Player Valuation: £35m
I didn't read the article, admittedly, and I probably won't. I'm sure Bloomberg's one reason and one reason only for paying the fines of nearly 32,000 black and Hispanic felons is the hope that they'll vote the Dem ticket, which, and perhaps it pains him, he cannot compel them to do. It's a baldly political move, just like the baldly political Republican move that prompted it.
What's the problem?
Tir Eoghain Blue
Player Valuation: £500k
Hmmmmm no problem, your first sentence says a lot. If you spent the three minutes it would take to read the post versus the time taken defending Bloomberg’s actions your points would have meaning.
No idea what the rep points actually mean on here but feel free to minus as many more that will make you happy. I do give credit to Bloomberg when he was the mayor of New York. The city was transformed into one of the worlds safest cities and tourism flourished. Now it is a cesspool and a no go area for many people which is sad
TN Toffee
Player Valuation: £25m
That really just seems like the kind of language that would be used in any discussion on how best to allocate campaign resources in the lead up to an election. It’s not like he actually wrote each of these people an individual check to pay off the legal dues. He gave the money to a group who was already trying to raise the money for these people. He simply identified the charitable organization that he felt could do the most good, with the least money, and donated accordingly.
- Status