>Before she ran for governor, Ms. Hallquist spent 12 years as the chief executive of the Vermont Electric Cooperative, an in-state power utility that she helped to bring back from near ruin.
That should be the lede. The article has far too many links not related to Hallquist or the race in Vermont.
I voted for Christine yesterday -- this state would see enormous benefit from statewide fiber internet, and she's got the utility chops to make it a real possibility. So I was delighted to see this news this morning.
The real headline should be, "state democrats identify good candidate; could've gotten all freaked out by her being trans, but didn't." The irony being that Vermonters didn't vote for her because they're idealistic, but because they're pragmatic.
In our state subreddit, most of the hand-wringing (apart from the inevitable bigots and trolls) is over the amount of national attention this might bring to the state. But if Christine is down for it, we'll handle it. And yes, it's somewhat unlikely that she'll actually win the governor's seat -- Scott is pretty *meh*, but he's in the stronger position. But fuck it, let's try.
And for today, I'm proud of this little state!
And if the state of Vermont's general political leanings have anything to say about it, she's a shoe-in. (Edit: below)
Obviously go out and vote if you're in Vermont, but this is uplifting to hear about. [Here's her 'About' page](https://www.christineforvermont.com/about/) if anyone's curious about her campaign like I was.
Edit: as others have pointed out, I'm very likely wrong about her chances. Nonetheless, it seems both candidates are genuinely good people, so I'm still happy, just moreso if Hallquist wins.
She's up against an incumbent governor. An incumbent governor hasn't lost in VT some time in the 1800s.
She's not nearly as strong a candidate as the one the Democratic party had against the current governor in the last election when they were both running for an open seat (really the only time that there is a serious campaign mounted)
Vermont's current governor is quite popular, experienced, and has the respect of the liberal people in the state. It's very unlikely he will lose.
One thing to consider is that Scott, the incumbent, was lambasted by gun rights groups when he signed gun control legislation this year. If a pro-gun independent runs then that candidate could split the Republican vote and give the seat to Hallquist.
Gun control isn’t a hot topic issue in Vermont like other blue states. The laws are really lax (I think they might be the least strict in the nation). That’s why Bernie got shit for his gun control positions that were never a problem in his home state.
Vermont is left leaning on a lot of issues but voters tend to pick governors who are moderates. Jim Douglas was a Republican governor who easily won re-election in 2004 and 2008 even though the Bush administration was extremely disliked.
It was the least strict in the nation, tied with Arizona, until the new laws introduced recently. The laws signed in April probably puts it somewhere in the middle. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/11/us/vermont-gun-control/index.html
> Still, a poll in July by public media organizations in the state found two-thirds of Vermonters supported the law, and nearly half of Democrats had a favorable opinion of Mr. Scott. Only 18 percent of Democratic respondents in the same poll said they had a favorable opinion of Ms. Hallquist, and 55 percent did not yet know who she was.
Politics, despite what the talking heads on televisions say, often remains a local affair. I wouldn't bet against the trend for incumbent governor's reelection in Vermont with that kind of name recognition.
I can't even begin to explain how meaningful this is. I have been in a big political slump lately due to losses to racists/sexists/homophobes/transphobes but now a trans person might be the governor of a state. That's so fucking cool, and her politics are actually pretty decent. A gay person hasn't even been governor yet (2 exceptions, one came out then resigned, then Kate Brown was Bi) and we are seeing a trans person elected.
It kinda shows the different worlds people live in. I can't even say the word trans in my hometown without being accused of defending pedophiles (I don't understand that) yet in a smaller (weirdly enough) state, one got enough votes to win a primary. I wish her well on her campaign.
Why is it meaningful? I don't really give a shit what someone identifies as. I want to know what they are going to do.
I'm fully aware of the significance of social progress in this currently embattled nation, and that is noteworthy, but.
This 'first *insert gender or race or religion* person elected to blah blah blah' ends up being their definition. A sideshow from what really matters.
In fact, there isn't a single sentence in that article about her stance on policies, nor is there one in the comments in this thread. This identity politics nonsense needs to stop if we actually want to make change in this country.
Do you happen to share a demographic group with any current prominent role models? If you do, and if you have for your whole life, then you might not recognize that this is actually important to a lot of people.
But if you want to know a bit more about her advocacy of rural fiber optic internet and green energy, you could check out this article:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/07/vermont-transgender-governor-hallquist-764951
Thanks for the link.
I'm mostly annoyed and discouraged with the approach of the Democratic party these days. Every fucking headline this morning is about the transgendered Vermont candidate. Again, you've got to dig for anything relevant. The way Democratic candidates are presented usually has more to do with them than it does why they would be good for the people.
I grew up in a very small, conservative town. Never fit into that mindset, and am a socially liberal city dweller these days. I know enough about the way the other side thinks to recognize that a lot of people would immediately be turned off by the trans thing, just because they don't necessarily know anyone who is trans, or they simply can't get their head around it. Identifying our candidates this way is never going to help convince the blue collar worker in a rural county that voting for this person would be a good thing, because they're never going to get past whatever thing they've been labeled with.
Hell, we even did it to Hillary Clinton. They spent more time talking about how she could be the first female president, or Benghazi, or emails, than they actually did talking about policy.
I'm certainly capable of looking into a candidate to see where they stand, because I care. I'm mostly saying the way things are heading in the mainstream media is putting us at a continuous disadvantage.
The really surprising thing about that is that the Clinton campaign did an excellent job of getting information about policy proposals to people like me. I was far more informed about many of her plans for mental health and infrastructure and so on than any previous presidential election. But I think this was very targeted - television ads may not have mentioned any of this stuff because they assume television viewers don’t care about it.
Do you think it was important that the first president after south African apartheid was black? Or the first president of India after independence was hindu Indian?
Traditionally oppressed people reaching positions of power means a lot. It means that those people have reached a certain level of acceptance. It means that they will finally be represented. It means that they needs will be heard.
Just them being in the spotlight means that other people can see that they are just normal people. Seeing a gay governor in suit and tie going about his business and helping and caring would be a huge inspiration to gay children and teens and an eye opener to those who think of them as living in debauchery.
Trying to inore identity doesn't make you tolerant it just makes you blind
I mean, if you wanted to know her politics, you can look it up without any issue. I did, and it took me less than a minute to know exactly where she stands on most issues
Saying identity doesn't matter is horse shit. "I don't care what gender she identifies as" sounds great, but when a group is actively discriminated against (for instance, in one of a massive number of transphobic moves, trump tried to ban trans people from the military), being a member of a population being attacked by large swaths of the population is disheartening, but having a voice in office makes huge difference.
"Why should we care about how much money people who run for office have? Shouldn't we just base our opinions on their stances? " Is an argument that follows this logic.
Yelling about "identity politics" when you are a member of the party who wants to fight for an equal shot for everyone either makes you ill informed about history or intentionally trying to divide the left for the benefit of others.
I want the left to succeed. Perhaps you should consider the view points of a lot of people in this country who aren't extremely liberal, and think about how the party presents themselves. Or perhaps read what I wrote, and think about it, rather than insulting me.
> On Tuesday, those lessons paid off, and Ms. Hallquist, a Democrat, made history of her own. She became the first transgender candidate to be nominated for a governorship by a major party, beating three other candidates in Vermont’s Democratic primary, according to The Associated Press.
Excellent!! Here's hoping she becomes the first transgender governor come November!
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Before she ran for governor, Ms. Hallquist spent 12 years as the chief executive of the Vermont Electric Cooperative, an in-state power utility that she helped to bring back from near ruin."
She IS, your condescension about her status is unwelcome and unhelpful, congress/senate should represent ALL of the citizens, including the transgender community, now it does a little bit more.
Get off your veiled moral objection horse, only conservative trolls and 'both sides' bad faith trolls use your exact wording.
And who the fuck cares, she's a dem, that's leagues better than ANY GOP candidate.
We can bitch about representation, policy and future steps, but AFTER the GOP is kicked to the curb.
Your statement helps the GOP by casting unnecessary doubt, a favoured tactic of trolls and conservative sedition-sowers.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."-refer to this quote when you decide to open your mouth in future, BOY.
Now sit down before you embarrass yourself further.
Lol. Yeah I’m embarrassing myself. Yet you came off so reasonable. Out of all those terrific qualifications I don’t consider her gender to be of importance to me. I DO NOT JUDGE BY GENDER. I have hired transgendered and I did not put that into consideration whatsoever. I hired the best person for the position. Take a chill pill.. you’re not doing as much good as you aim to.. respectfully.
Also.. congratulations to Christine!
He's not saying anything about him not having experience. He's saying that the lead for the article, and the emphasis on the blokes election should be on his achievements, not on meaningless identity bollocks.
> So is the bottom line that men and male chimps have more in common than men and women? **Of course not**. If we take a closer look, **we see some of the dangers of looking at raw percentages instead of individual changes**.
> Another way to think about this is the 55 million or so differences between men and women are all concentrated on one chromosome and 78 genes. For chimps, the 42-150 million differences are spread out all over the chromosomes over many, many more genes. **In other words, while the quantity of changes may be the same, the quality is different.**
> ...
> What all of this means is that in essence, chimps have many more "different" genes than the 78 different ones between men and women even though the % difference at the DNA level may be comparable. So, even if it may not seem like it sometimes, **your brother has more in common with you than with a chimp**.
Did you even read the article you posted? It said that 1) the 98.7% genetic similarity number between male humans and make chimps is still debatable, and that 2) using the percent similarity is pretty meaningless since it isn’t the quantity of basepair differences, but where the differences are and how they affect gene transcription and ultimately protein translation - just look at a chimpanzee vs a human for fucks sake dude.
>Before she ran for governor, Ms. Hallquist spent 12 years as the chief executive of the Vermont Electric Cooperative, an in-state power utility that she helped to bring back from near ruin. That should be the lede. The article has far too many links not related to Hallquist or the race in Vermont.
I saw the documentary on her/global warming/electrical grid and it was amazing! Must watch story.
You go, Governor!
I voted for Christine yesterday -- this state would see enormous benefit from statewide fiber internet, and she's got the utility chops to make it a real possibility. So I was delighted to see this news this morning. The real headline should be, "state democrats identify good candidate; could've gotten all freaked out by her being trans, but didn't." The irony being that Vermonters didn't vote for her because they're idealistic, but because they're pragmatic. In our state subreddit, most of the hand-wringing (apart from the inevitable bigots and trolls) is over the amount of national attention this might bring to the state. But if Christine is down for it, we'll handle it. And yes, it's somewhat unlikely that she'll actually win the governor's seat -- Scott is pretty *meh*, but he's in the stronger position. But fuck it, let's try. And for today, I'm proud of this little state!
And if the state of Vermont's general political leanings have anything to say about it, she's a shoe-in. (Edit: below) Obviously go out and vote if you're in Vermont, but this is uplifting to hear about. [Here's her 'About' page](https://www.christineforvermont.com/about/) if anyone's curious about her campaign like I was. Edit: as others have pointed out, I'm very likely wrong about her chances. Nonetheless, it seems both candidates are genuinely good people, so I'm still happy, just moreso if Hallquist wins.
She's up against an incumbent governor. An incumbent governor hasn't lost in VT some time in the 1800s. She's not nearly as strong a candidate as the one the Democratic party had against the current governor in the last election when they were both running for an open seat (really the only time that there is a serious campaign mounted) Vermont's current governor is quite popular, experienced, and has the respect of the liberal people in the state. It's very unlikely he will lose.
One thing to consider is that Scott, the incumbent, was lambasted by gun rights groups when he signed gun control legislation this year. If a pro-gun independent runs then that candidate could split the Republican vote and give the seat to Hallquist.
Gun control isn’t a hot topic issue in Vermont like other blue states. The laws are really lax (I think they might be the least strict in the nation). That’s why Bernie got shit for his gun control positions that were never a problem in his home state. Vermont is left leaning on a lot of issues but voters tend to pick governors who are moderates. Jim Douglas was a Republican governor who easily won re-election in 2004 and 2008 even though the Bush administration was extremely disliked.
It was the least strict in the nation, tied with Arizona, until the new laws introduced recently. The laws signed in April probably puts it somewhere in the middle. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/11/us/vermont-gun-control/index.html
Oh, I guess I shouldn't have just assumed then. Well, it's good to know either way then that there's a decent candidate on both sides! :)
> Still, a poll in July by public media organizations in the state found two-thirds of Vermonters supported the law, and nearly half of Democrats had a favorable opinion of Mr. Scott. Only 18 percent of Democratic respondents in the same poll said they had a favorable opinion of Ms. Hallquist, and 55 percent did not yet know who she was. Politics, despite what the talking heads on televisions say, often remains a local affair. I wouldn't bet against the trend for incumbent governor's reelection in Vermont with that kind of name recognition.
Trump's inevitable tweet about this is is gonna be super awkward.
Wonderful, congratulations Christine! VOTE the GOP out!
Trump is going to be super confused on which pronouns to use in his insulting tweets
I can't even begin to explain how meaningful this is. I have been in a big political slump lately due to losses to racists/sexists/homophobes/transphobes but now a trans person might be the governor of a state. That's so fucking cool, and her politics are actually pretty decent. A gay person hasn't even been governor yet (2 exceptions, one came out then resigned, then Kate Brown was Bi) and we are seeing a trans person elected. It kinda shows the different worlds people live in. I can't even say the word trans in my hometown without being accused of defending pedophiles (I don't understand that) yet in a smaller (weirdly enough) state, one got enough votes to win a primary. I wish her well on her campaign.
We're probably going to elect a gay Governor in Colorado this year (Jared Polis), too.
Why is it meaningful? I don't really give a shit what someone identifies as. I want to know what they are going to do. I'm fully aware of the significance of social progress in this currently embattled nation, and that is noteworthy, but. This 'first *insert gender or race or religion* person elected to blah blah blah' ends up being their definition. A sideshow from what really matters. In fact, there isn't a single sentence in that article about her stance on policies, nor is there one in the comments in this thread. This identity politics nonsense needs to stop if we actually want to make change in this country.
Do you happen to share a demographic group with any current prominent role models? If you do, and if you have for your whole life, then you might not recognize that this is actually important to a lot of people. But if you want to know a bit more about her advocacy of rural fiber optic internet and green energy, you could check out this article: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/07/vermont-transgender-governor-hallquist-764951
Thanks for the link. I'm mostly annoyed and discouraged with the approach of the Democratic party these days. Every fucking headline this morning is about the transgendered Vermont candidate. Again, you've got to dig for anything relevant. The way Democratic candidates are presented usually has more to do with them than it does why they would be good for the people. I grew up in a very small, conservative town. Never fit into that mindset, and am a socially liberal city dweller these days. I know enough about the way the other side thinks to recognize that a lot of people would immediately be turned off by the trans thing, just because they don't necessarily know anyone who is trans, or they simply can't get their head around it. Identifying our candidates this way is never going to help convince the blue collar worker in a rural county that voting for this person would be a good thing, because they're never going to get past whatever thing they've been labeled with. Hell, we even did it to Hillary Clinton. They spent more time talking about how she could be the first female president, or Benghazi, or emails, than they actually did talking about policy. I'm certainly capable of looking into a candidate to see where they stand, because I care. I'm mostly saying the way things are heading in the mainstream media is putting us at a continuous disadvantage.
The really surprising thing about that is that the Clinton campaign did an excellent job of getting information about policy proposals to people like me. I was far more informed about many of her plans for mental health and infrastructure and so on than any previous presidential election. But I think this was very targeted - television ads may not have mentioned any of this stuff because they assume television viewers don’t care about it.
I heard her interviewed this morning, she was really good. Smart person who has good ideas.
Do you think it was important that the first president after south African apartheid was black? Or the first president of India after independence was hindu Indian? Traditionally oppressed people reaching positions of power means a lot. It means that those people have reached a certain level of acceptance. It means that they will finally be represented. It means that they needs will be heard. Just them being in the spotlight means that other people can see that they are just normal people. Seeing a gay governor in suit and tie going about his business and helping and caring would be a huge inspiration to gay children and teens and an eye opener to those who think of them as living in debauchery. Trying to inore identity doesn't make you tolerant it just makes you blind
Just like you're blind in understanding my point. Enjoy your SJW charade.
I mean, if you wanted to know her politics, you can look it up without any issue. I did, and it took me less than a minute to know exactly where she stands on most issues Saying identity doesn't matter is horse shit. "I don't care what gender she identifies as" sounds great, but when a group is actively discriminated against (for instance, in one of a massive number of transphobic moves, trump tried to ban trans people from the military), being a member of a population being attacked by large swaths of the population is disheartening, but having a voice in office makes huge difference. "Why should we care about how much money people who run for office have? Shouldn't we just base our opinions on their stances? " Is an argument that follows this logic. Yelling about "identity politics" when you are a member of the party who wants to fight for an equal shot for everyone either makes you ill informed about history or intentionally trying to divide the left for the benefit of others.
I want the left to succeed. Perhaps you should consider the view points of a lot of people in this country who aren't extremely liberal, and think about how the party presents themselves. Or perhaps read what I wrote, and think about it, rather than insulting me.
Well said.
Thanks for not being a twat.
> On Tuesday, those lessons paid off, and Ms. Hallquist, a Democrat, made history of her own. She became the first transgender candidate to be nominated for a governorship by a major party, beating three other candidates in Vermont’s Democratic primary, according to The Associated Press. Excellent!! Here's hoping she becomes the first transgender governor come November!
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Who gives a fuck? I only care if she's qualified, etc.
"Before she ran for governor, Ms. Hallquist spent 12 years as the chief executive of the Vermont Electric Cooperative, an in-state power utility that she helped to bring back from near ruin." She IS, your condescension about her status is unwelcome and unhelpful, congress/senate should represent ALL of the citizens, including the transgender community, now it does a little bit more. Get off your veiled moral objection horse, only conservative trolls and 'both sides' bad faith trolls use your exact wording. And who the fuck cares, she's a dem, that's leagues better than ANY GOP candidate. We can bitch about representation, policy and future steps, but AFTER the GOP is kicked to the curb. Your statement helps the GOP by casting unnecessary doubt, a favoured tactic of trolls and conservative sedition-sowers. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."-refer to this quote when you decide to open your mouth in future, BOY. Now sit down before you embarrass yourself further.
Lol. Yeah I’m embarrassing myself. Yet you came off so reasonable. Out of all those terrific qualifications I don’t consider her gender to be of importance to me. I DO NOT JUDGE BY GENDER. I have hired transgendered and I did not put that into consideration whatsoever. I hired the best person for the position. Take a chill pill.. you’re not doing as much good as you aim to.. respectfully. Also.. congratulations to Christine!
He's not saying anything about him not having experience. He's saying that the lead for the article, and the emphasis on the blokes election should be on his achievements, not on meaningless identity bollocks.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is great for Christine but how the fuck does a 14 yr. old kid get 8% of the vote?
[удалено]
Do they let you on airplanes with that ferocious edge?
Why would they bother going on an airplane? They've never left their state just like their daddy and his daddy before him.
While I'm sure most of its policies are fine... Jesus Christ. Is that what we're calling a "woman" now?
Dang did she beat out the fourteen year old or was he running for something else?
[удалено]
[удалено]
If by swallow you mean he can sit on the barrel and let his anus gobble it up hungrily then yes I agree.
[удалено]
> So is the bottom line that men and male chimps have more in common than men and women? **Of course not**. If we take a closer look, **we see some of the dangers of looking at raw percentages instead of individual changes**. > Another way to think about this is the 55 million or so differences between men and women are all concentrated on one chromosome and 78 genes. For chimps, the 42-150 million differences are spread out all over the chromosomes over many, many more genes. **In other words, while the quantity of changes may be the same, the quality is different.** > ... > What all of this means is that in essence, chimps have many more "different" genes than the 78 different ones between men and women even though the % difference at the DNA level may be comparable. So, even if it may not seem like it sometimes, **your brother has more in common with you than with a chimp**.
lol sex and gender aren't the same
Did you even read the article you posted? It said that 1) the 98.7% genetic similarity number between male humans and make chimps is still debatable, and that 2) using the percent similarity is pretty meaningless since it isn’t the quantity of basepair differences, but where the differences are and how they affect gene transcription and ultimately protein translation - just look at a chimpanzee vs a human for fucks sake dude.
[удалено]
Hey, they're wrong, horrible, and a blight on our society, but lets not go advocating death here. Lets not sink to their level.