"Senator Al Franken Accused of Groping a Woman in 2006"

[_Ceeboo]

Dup

[_Chap]

My view is that (amongst other things) it would be a good thing if a minority of men would take account of the strong wish most women have not to be groped against their will, spoken to or about in relation to their gender in a manner they find degrading, or to have sexual favours demanded of them as the price for their job security or career advancement not being negatively affected. And that as a result that minority of men would stop doing stuff like that.

Do you disagree with that view?

Well, my view is it would be a good thing if whatever percentage of women would take into account their own complicity within the sexual dynamic at a workplace, stop knowingly getting themselves into unprofessional relationships, and then be held accountable for their poor decision making without getting off scot free or destroying a man's career because she's not getting the benefit out of said relationship anymore.

The idea that a man's world can be destroyed simply because of an accusation is totally ridiculous. We just don't know how much quid pro quo, consent, flirting, participation, and pursuit was done by the women in these scenarios. To believe one party over the other just because one party says so is so mind blowingly dumb I don't know where to begin.

But then again, this isn't really about justice is it?

- Doc

So, no answer to my question, then. Don't you agree that, other things apart (and I know you want to talk about LOTS of other things):

... it would be a good thing if a minority of men would take account of the strong wish most women have not to be groped against their will, spoken to or about in relation to their gender in a manner they find degrading, or to have sexual favours demanded of them as the price for their job security or career advancement not being negatively affected. And that as a result that minority of men would stop doing stuff like that.

Is your answer to that question 'No' or 'Don't care', or what?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sure. I think the minority of men who are pervy creeps shouldn't be pervy creeps. What I find interesting is how many of these guys, who really never would've been afforded the opportunity to interact with women to the degree they do had it not been for their status or influence, either get suckered into a sexual quid pro quo, or they lose their minds and do outrageously inappropriate things to women.

It's like they never learned through trial & error as kids, teens, and young men how to be because they were undesirable to the opposite sex, and then suddenly when they get success and women engage them they literally either don't know how to act or are easily manipulated.

On top of their own awkwardness or sexual desperation, they see so many mixed signals from society that they don't know how to untangle it all. It's funny, sad, alarming, and sad (again) because these guys just don't have a clue, and when they finally "arrive" they're “F” ed because they conceptually have an idea of how it should work, but they have no practical experience. They're sexual autists, but with money and power so they either have a target on their back or they're destined to do the wrong thing.

I find it alarming that it's all just shame and condemnation being heaped on these men with no attempt, whatsoever, to understand them and why they do what they do. Perhaps because they are men, and it's so easy to crap all over them because that's what's done to men, that empathy for them is beyond our ability.

- Doc

[_Xenophon]

This should be the last resurrection of this thread as Franken has just declared on the Senate floor that he will be giving up his seat in the coming weeks amid continued allegations and pressure from his party.

I'm glad that the Democrats finally did what they should have done at the start. Early in this thread I shared some thoughts from Nate Silver as to why they should have done this sooner. I suppose it only fitting that I share his thoughts about the aftermath.

Polling suggests that voters care a lot about sexual harassment allegations — a Quinnipiac poll this week, for instance, found that 66 percent of voters thought that politicians should resign when “accused of sexual harassment or sexual assault by multiple people.” And the poll also found that only 28 percent of voters approve of the Democrats’ handling of sexual harassment and sexual assault claims, as compared with 50 percent who disapprove. That’s better than the numbers for Republicans (21 percent approve, 60 percent disapprove), but not by much. Meanwhile, a Huffington Post/YouGov poll last month found equally poor numbers for Democrats and Republicans when voters were asked whether the parties had a sexual harassment “problem.”

Voters are also not necessarily interested in making overly fine distinctions among different types of sexual misconduct. A YouGov poll this week, for instance, found that roughly the same proportion of voters wanted Franken (43 percent resign, 23 percent not resign, 35 percent not sure) and Moore (47/22/31) to step down.1 All of this goes to show that voters face a number of complexities when considering these allegations, such as the number of accusers; the severity of the alleged misconduct; the age of the victims and their ability to consent; the amount of time passed since the alleged misconduct; the credibility of the accusers; whether the politicians apologize for the conduct or how persuasive they were in denying the allegations; and whether the allegations involved an abuse of public office. As a human being, I have my own intuitive and moral sense for how to weigh these factors — but as someone who tries to diagnose their political impact, I don’t necessarily expect everyone else to sort them out in quite the same way.

emphasis mine

And a perfect summation of where I started on all this:

Maintaining the moral high ground isn’t always easy. It means you have to hold your party to a higher standard than the other party. It means you sometimes have to make real trade-offs. But it can also pay political dividends and mitigate political risks. Democrats just lost an election in 2016 against a historically unpopular candidate because their candidate was disliked nearly as much. The political environment is favorable for Democrats in 2018, but perhaps the easiest way that Democrats could blow their opportunity is if voters conclude that as bad as Republicans are, Democrats are no better. With Democrats coming around to a tougher stance on Franken and Conyers while Republicans equivocate on Moore and restore funding to his campaign, they’ll be able to draw a clearer distinction for voters.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm watching his resignation right. Man, he sure is milking it.

- Doc

[_Xenophon]

I'm watching his resignation right. Man, he sure is milking it.

- Doc

Ever the showman. I can definitely understand his frustration, nothing like being ousted for your allegations when others get to keep on playing.

On the flip side, two wrongs don't make a right, and all that.

[_Some Schmo]

Ever the showman. I can definitely understand his frustration, nothing like being ousted for your allegations when others get to keep on playing.

On the flip side, two wrongs don't make a right, and all that.

Given the sincerity with which he delivered his denial, it makes me wonder if he just doesn't get that he comes off a certain way toward certain women, or that he may confuse their admiration for a comedian/senator as something more amorous. Maybe he thinks groping women, or trying to kiss them without their consent is his way of being genuinely friendly. It's very strange.

On the other hand, maybe he's just a very good liar.

[_Res Ipsa]

I’m disappointed that Franken resigned. I think it lets the Senate off the hook from having to grapple with the issue of when these types of allegations disqualify someone from office. I’m willing to be that, if Roy Moore wins,there will be no ethics investigation. Had both been investigated, the Senate would have been forced to come up with some kinds of standards.

I fear that Franken was forced out on a political bet that his resignation would help Democrats capture the Alabama Senate seat. I think that’s a bad bet and shortsighted, too.

[_subgenius]

Polling suggests that voters care a lot about sexual harassment allegations

Franken is a stooge for paying attention to any poll that is outside of his district....and Nate Silver is a stooge because the Alabama polling suggests that voters actually don't care about allegations.

[_EAllusion]

This should be the last resurrection of this thread as Franken has just declared on the Senate floor that he will be giving up his seat in the coming weeks amid continued allegations and pressure from his party.

I'm glad that the Democrats finally did what they should have done at the start. Early in this thread I shared some thoughts from Nate Silver as to why they should have done this sooner. I suppose it only fitting that I share his thoughts about the aftermath.

Polling suggests that voters care a lot about sexual harassment allegations — a Quinnipiac poll this week, for instance, found that 66 percent of voters thought that politicians should resign when “accused of sexual harassment or sexual assault by multiple people.” And the poll also found that only 28 percent of voters approve of the Democrats’ handling of sexual harassment and sexual assault claims, as compared with 50 percent who disapprove. That’s better than the numbers for Republicans (21 percent approve, 60 percent disapprove), but not by much. Meanwhile, a Huffington Post/YouGov poll last month found equally poor numbers for Democrats and Republicans when voters were asked whether the parties had a sexual harassment “problem.”

Voters are also not necessarily interested in making overly fine distinctions among different types of sexual misconduct. A YouGov poll this week, for instance, found that roughly the same proportion of voters wanted Franken (43 percent resign, 23 percent not resign, 35 percent not sure) and Moore (47/22/31) to step down.1 All of this goes to show that voters face a number of complexities when considering these allegations, such as the number of accusers; the severity of the alleged misconduct; the age of the victims and their ability to consent; the amount of time passed since the alleged misconduct; the credibility of the accusers; whether the politicians apologize for the conduct or how persuasive they were in denying the allegations; and whether the allegations involved an abuse of public office. As a human being, I have my own intuitive and moral sense for how to weigh these factors — but as someone who tries to diagnose their political impact, I don’t necessarily expect everyone else to sort them out in quite the same way.

emphasis mine

And a perfect summation of where I started on all this:

Maintaining the moral high ground isn’t always easy. It means you have to hold your party to a higher standard than the other party. It means you sometimes have to make real trade-offs. But it can also pay political dividends and mitigate political risks. Democrats just lost an election in 2016 against a historically unpopular candidate because their candidate was disliked nearly as much. The political environment is favorable for Democrats in 2018, but perhaps the easiest way that Democrats could blow their opportunity is if voters conclude that as bad as Republicans are, Democrats are no better. With Democrats coming around to a tougher stance on Franken and Conyers while Republicans equivocate on Moore and restore funding to his campaign, they’ll be able to draw a clearer distinction for voters.

I know this is a popular view, but I'm quite skeptical of it. First, 2020 is a long ways off and political memory is too short to took at contemporary polling as a guidance for impact on voting behavior in 3 years. Second, there's scant evidence that scandals like this move public opinion a large amount. Roy Moore is being revealed as an abject monster days before an election and as best anyone can tell, this has moved voting intentions against him around 4-5 points. Think about how little that is in comparison to wall-to-wall, soul-destroying scandals being revealed about him from bilking his charity to sexual predation of young girls, to his ultra-conservative theocratic views getting wider attention. Of course, 4 points could be enough to swing an election in a swing state like MN, but Franken's accusations aren't even remotely as serious. His skill as a legislator and ability to meld working class populism to progressiveness might wash out the negatives of his scandal in comparison to a somewhat inferior Democrat candidate. It's hard to know.

This might not be a good move at all from a Democratic electioneering standpoint. Moreoever, not all Democrats are equal. Franken was actually a very good Senator from some ideological points of view and whomever replaces him in the 2018 special might not be the same type of candidate. This can harm policy agenda going forward.

It's nice to have one's cake and eat it too, but people who wanted his resignation might have to accept their are political downsides to it.