Nominating a woman or person of color vs. nominating "the best person."

[Garrett78]

"The global scholarship leaves no doubt: Women in political office make it a priority to advance rights, equality and opportunity for women and girls, in a way and to a degree that men in power overwhelmingly do not."

There are similar findings when it comes to electing persons of color.

And success encourages more women and persons of color to pursue public office in a society that discourages women and persons of color from pursuing public office. Electing women and persons of color represent cracks in the facade. Our electorate is increasingly diverse, and the incoming class of Democratic Congresspersons reflects that reality. Those who will take office, and even those who fell short (like Abrams and Gillum) are an inspiration to those who are historically the most oppressed.

The US is built on a foundation of white supremacy and patriarchy. Absent racism and sexism, the Republican Party of today would cease to be viable as a national institution. Progress is always met by a backlash. Slowly but surely, however, the foundation is weakened. Until, one day, it collapses.

Let's not fall victim to color-blind racism, the rhetoric used to oppose affirmative action and the penchant for denying the reality that electing women matters--or that the US "isn't ready for a woman president."

I do not wish to make this about any one candidate (this thread is about much more than a single individual), but I support Kamala Harris for president for numerous reasons, including those mentioned above. And, from a purely electoral standpoint, she puts North Carolina, Florida and Georgia in play. I hope (and am hopeful) that our electorate will come to realize that Harris is "the best person" in this moment, in this period in our history.

[brush]

1. One thing for sure, after black womens' and other POC s' efforts in...

the several special elections earlier this year and the blue wave last month, if there isn't a POC or woman on the 2020 ticket, there will be negative push back that won't be good for the party.

We can't keep having black women save the party's bacon over and over and then not share the power and recognition. IMO running two white males would be a mistake. Harris/Beto or Warren/Booker or Klobuchar/Castro or Brown/Harris are combinations that reflect the base of the party and would work.

[violetpastille]

2. +1

[CrispyQ]

6. This.

If we have two white males on the ticket I will be pissed. I will vote for them, but not with the same enthusiasm as I would a diverse ticket.

[UniteFightBack]

12. Black folks share power within this party. nt

[sheshe2]

30. three-fifths? nt

[brush]

31. I saw what you did there.

[sheshe2]

45. umhmm.

Yes.

[ismnotwasm]

22. +1000,000,000

[sheshe2]

28. + infinity!

[Kind of Blue]

86. Hear! Hear!

Thank you.

[sarisataka]

3. I have no personal prerequisites

For the gender/racial make up of the eventual ticket, although I do believe it will be diverse- wisely so.

Do you believe, however, if the Democratic nominee is a white male there will be people who will choose to sit out the election and not vote against Trump?

[brush]

4. Only if a POC or woman is not the VP pick. Two white males would be problematic.

[Iggo]

5. Her gender and her race are PLUSES, not the be-all-end-all. (n/t)

[Adrahil]

16. I agree with this.

We want diversity and we see it as a plus. To me, that means we should be encouraging promising young women and POC into influentual positions and giving them a chance to shine. It does not mean that we decide beforehand that a POC or woman must lead the ticket or even be on it, though I think a ticket with two white guys would be a bad idea.

[hueymahl]

33. Yep

She has a lot going for her, and her gender and race are just two of the qualities.

[spicysista]

7. "Let's not fall victim to color-blind racism."

That's just about everything, isn't it. Excellent post!

[Garrett78]

43. And the rhetoric used to argue against affirmative action is on full display in post #32.

This thread has, not surprisingly I suppose, proven to be pretty depressing.

[spicysista]

61. Don't let it get you down. The "colour-blind" folks are...

...only doing what they usually do. Their response is to be expected (in all its glory, lol) because it's how they're conditioned to be. However, there's always hope. They may not see it today or tomorrow. But, I have hope that they'll see the negative impact of this thinking....eventually.

Since my perspective is that of a black woman, I usually refer them to the published works of Dr. Robin DiAngelo , Jane Elliot, or Tim Wise. The articles you presented challenge them to reevaluate a core belief that may have been established in good faith. If they are still stuck in a world where racism is only a 2 sided street (a good side and a bad), it may be helpful to direct them to a source that can challenge that perception. Some of their responses, at least to my eyes, seem to reveal this thinking. "Thing "A" that I've been doing can not possibly be racist (harmful to minorities, a result of privilege, biased, etc.) because I'm a good person. "

Again, about your original post, excellent work! The articles linked are powerfully written. Thank you for being brave enough to lift this issue.

[Garrett78]

77. Post #50 was to be my last, but I wanted to say I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

Sadly, white folks such as Wise and DiAngelo are more likely to be heard (see post #50).

All of the "I want the best person regardless of..." posts in this thread display a level of ignorance and simplistic thinking that is hard to not get depressed about. As if "best person" is some objective criteria.

Take care.

[JCanete]

8. Of course, people of color and women are far more likely to be elected as democrats, and of

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2018, 01:34 AM - Edit history (1)

course some of our white male democrats hold on in states where we make assumptions(right or wrong) about what kind of candidate can win there. I'd be interested to know if there's a stronger correlation to fighting these good fights when just compared to white male individuals on the same side of the aisle who represent these same kinds of districts.

There's no question in my mind that diversity brings valuable perspective and potentially different lived wisdom to the table that our government sorely needs. There's no question that considering race and gender for this reason when casting a ballot is worthwhile. For that matter, I am fully in favor of affirmative action across the board.

But the question is how heavily this factor should be weighed versus the actual rhetoric and track record of an individual candidate, versus that candidate's opponent. It should not be weighed so heavily, in my opinion, that for instance, you support a Clarence Thomas or a (edit)Herman Caine or a Ben Carlson or a Susan Collins, because, as we all know here, they are setting equality backwards, not forwards.

Which means on a sliding scale, just because we have a democratic woman running in a primary for a given seat, doesn't automatically mean that that candidate is the better choice, EVEN on women's issues, than her opponent. All other things being equal, I think its entirely reasonable to lean in the direction of more diversity...again, when we know that candidate is the best candidate to actually fight for those she represents. Maybe even sometimes, when its a matter of breaking some remaining glass ceiling, because as you say, that is validation that encourages more to run and it changes the expectations of these regions as well.

[Persondem]

9. I am all for diversity, but, sadly, there is still a political cost to be paid for being inclusive.

... and here it is, quantified:

"Jackman and Vavreck (2011), using polling data with hypothetical 2008 match-ups, find that an “average” white Democrat would have received about 3 percentage points more votes than Obama did.Table 5 shows that House Democratic candidates received a 2.3 percentage point larger gain in 2008 relative to 2004 than Obama received relative
to Kerry; the results in Section 3.2 suggest that the House Democratic swing would have been even larger absent turnout effects due to Obama's race."

Being Black will cost about 3%. From https://people.cs.umass.edu/~brenocon/smacss2015/papers/StephensDawidowitz2014.pdf

"In 2014, Pew Research Center asked respondents whether they would be more or less likely to support a presidential candidate who is a woman. Overall, most people (71 percent) said it wouldn’t matter. But 15 percent of Republicans and 19 percent of self-identified conservatives said “less likely” (compared with 5 percent of Democrats and 4 percent of liberals). A Morning Consult poll in 20163 found roughly the same results."

It's not as well defined but being female will cost at least 5%. From https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-republican-party-isnt-electing-more-women/

Odds are there is some overlap between those who are reluctant to vote for a woman and those who are reluctant to vote for an African-American. Still, any African-American female will start out at least 5% to 8% behind any white guy the GOP proffers.

That's the reality of politics in America in the first decades of the 21st century.

[brush]

23. So how do those figures account for O winning twice and Hillary winning the pop. vote by 3m?

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2018, 09:57 PM - Edit history (1)

[Persondem]

25. Well you could do your own reading and figure it out. But apparently O was 5% - 7% better and so

could afford a 3% hit. Also, Clinton was perhaps 8% - 10% better than trump, took her hit for being a woman which hurt in exactly the wrong states to tip the EC. That is my interpretation. The articles/research had a narrow focus and did not look at such explanations.

[brush]

26. Meh, we always have to work harder to combat repug cheating...

so this seemingly white-male-favoring-pessimism won't discourage us from nominating a woman or a POC or a white male for that matter if they navigate through the primary season most successfully.

Thanks for posting it though. The concern is noted.

[Persondem]

27. That seems to be an overly dismissive interpretation....

Actual research into the matter at hand is "male-favoring-pessimism".

Okay.

[brush]

29. We just love this pessimistic stuff to kick off our candidate evaluations.

[NewJeffCT]

69. What they're saying

is that if all other things were equal, a white Obama would have won by more votes in both 2008 and 2012,

A 5% swing towards Clinton gives her a huge landslide - PA, WI and MI go to her, as well as NC, FL and AZ, with GA a razor thin loss and Clinton also getting 1 EV in Nebraska.

[brush]

82. That's not hard to understand. African Americans get that. Women get that.

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2018, 02:22 PM - Edit history (1)

What the study doesn't get is that we get it, it's a given in America that we have to work harder to be successful in this country.

We're ready to put in the work and allies need to get on board with that and, IMO, stop with the not-so-thinly-veiled pessimism that we have a better chance if we run a ticket of (sorry, I have to say it) two white males.

POCs and women have been battling these roadblocks put in our path all our lives. It's nothing new. If you're on board with Harris or Klobuchar or Warren or Castro or Booker get ready to defend against these kind of studies and other obstacles to come.

Why I asked how does the study account for O winning and Hillary winning the pop. vote? It doesn't because it doesn't count intangibles, just imagined numbers. If we had listened to that account in 2008 both O and Hillary would've been kicked to the curb for John Edwards.

[Garrett78]

44. There are all sorts of problems with that analysis and the assumptions made.

Such as trying to draw a comparison between the situation in 2004 and the one in 2008. The only remotely fair comparison would be Obama running vs. Edwards or Biden or [insert white male] running in 2008, but it's impossible to know the answer to that.

[Persondem]

84. Did you actually read the article and do you understand regression analysis? nt

[delisen]

52. There is also a cost for not being inclusive.n/t

[Laura PourMeADrink]

55. That is very interesting information. If you are

living in a red enclave, it is 100% believable. Here, people still use racial slurs and women are relegated to the kitchen group while men wait to be served.

I think that is why people cling to weak and manufactured garbage about candidates too...to mask their inate bigotry.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. Pew said 19% were more likely to vote for a woman, 9% less likely

so there is a cost to putting up a male candidate, by your reckoning.



http://www.people-press.org/2014/05/19/for-2016-hopefuls-washington-experience-could-do-more-harm-than-good/

Then again, in that 2014 poll, "never held office" was a highly negative feature, but Trump made a lot of that.

By the way, your "it's not as well defined but being female will cost at least 5%" appears to have been made up from thin air. How do you try to justify it?

[Persondem]

85. Thank you for the reasonable response. I admitted in my post that I was extrapolating

from the 538 article. The justification is in that article, ... so yes I made it up but not from "thin air".

Turns out that 538 cited the same poll you did, but they included the breakdown by party and conservative/moderate/liberal.

From the poll ...

But many liberal Democrats find the idea of a woman candidate appealing: 40% of liberal Democrats say they would be more likely to support a female presidential candidate, nearly double the share of conservative and moderate Democrats (23%). Among Republicans, about as many would be less likely (15%) as more likely (10%) to support a woman candidate; 74% of Republicans say it wouldn’t matter.

Having only seen the negatives from the 538 article, that's where I got the negative for being female. Liberal democrats may have skewed the overall results especially as any true liberal democrat will vote for a Democratic candidate, male or female. It's the more marginal Dem voters that are less likely to vote for a woman. Also, in 2014 the idea of a Clinton candidacy was a hot topic.

Check out this poll ... https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-you-more-likely-to-vote-for-a-woman-or-a-man/

All but one demographic group is less likely to vote for a woman.

[JHan]

10. K&R.

Diverse representation benefits all.

And as an aside, political considerations for certain groups have been prioritized in politics. This is an electoral strategy memo for Truman - note the stratifications - "The jew" , "the catholic" , "the italian" "the liberals" , "The negro" etc http://personal.ashland.edu/~jmoser1/clifford.htm So what is this aversion to acknowledging these truths? Best to understand how they work than push some identity-blindness. When people say someone like Joe can appeal to the white working class, that is identity politics too
.... don't quite understand that kind of thing, unless you ignore his policies and track record and focus on his persona/identity.

As I've said before, when white men thoroughly dominated the political arena, "identity" often featured highly in campaigns, from anti-catholicism, projecting masculinity to contrast with an opponent's perceived homosexuality, tired tropes like the "Outsider" the "dude you can have a beer with", , and channeling the "silent majority" - all identity based. Yet, when it's a woman or someone not white, cries about identity politics are heard. No one is immune to identity considerations, it is intrinsically tied to retail politics and how it's played.. to ignore it or pretend the dynamic doesn't exist is to willfully ignore truths.

[Garrett78]

46. Very well said.

So many of the comments in this thread display a stunning level of ignorance and an inability to grasp my point. Reading the articles in my OP might have helped some folks. Such as the following excerpt from the first article:

Such findings don't mean that all female officeholders seek to advance women's rights, or that women govern only from the standpoint of gender. But the research does speak strongly to the fact that women and men in power have different priorities.

And then there's the danger that if women aren't at the table, they might be on the menu. In late 2009, the all-male Senate Democratic leadership team met privately to decide what would be included in the final Affordable Care Act. They eliminated a women's healthcare amendment that had passed overwhelmingly in committee, and that included coverage for such things as contraceptives and mammograms. The amendment's sponsor, Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), had to demand its reinstatement just as the caucus was about to vote on the final bill.

"You have to include the women," she told then-majority leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Had she not stood her ground, with the support of other women senators, the interests of 51% of the population would have been sacrificed in the most consequential piece of legislation in a generation.

And, as I posted recently in another thread, there is this notion, though few Biden proponents would admit this, that our nominee must be a white male in order to win back MI, WI and PA. That we must appeal to Trump voters or so-called "independents" (even though studies show "independents" to be unreliable voters and highly partisan - not actually independent).

Instead, we should recognize the moment we're in (Me Too and Black Lives Matter), and recognize the significance of the diversity (and youthfulness) of our electorate as well as that of the incoming class of Democratic members of Congress.

For some, though, it's all about appealing to white folks. Turnout of persons of color isn't even discussed.

Electing women and persons of color is so much more important and meaningful (in terms of ending oppression and the Republican Party) than many seem to realize. Comments in this thread indicate that it's merely a bonus and that they just want "the best person," as if that has any concrete meaning. They offer no definition beyond "someone who can win," as if that can be determined ahead of time--and, again, there's no consideration given to turnout beyond that of "white working class" persons.

It's bad enough that right wingers are clueless about or in denial about oppression theory and systemic racism/sexism.

I must remind myself that DU is not representative of the Democratic electorate as a whole. Alas, I think it's time for me to take an extended break from DU. Be well.

[JHan]

63. I understand your frustration.

and will miss your insight

[Iggo]

11. It's. Not. Either. Or.

(I swear, didn't we do this already?)

[Garrett78]

41. That was, more or less, my point.

[Bucky]

48. Yes thank you

People might become aware of and become excited about a candidate because of their sex or race. But there's a world of difference between that and voting for someone just because of their demographic categories.

[UniteFightBack]

13. So we should become a party of identity politics? nt

[Caliman73]

14. All politics is "Identity Politics"

It is ridiculous to not realize and understand that. White people tend to think that only issues affecting women and minorities are "identity politics". The dominant discourse throughout American history has been identity politics only the identity that has been important and privileged is the White, mainly straight male, identity.

When people talk about the working class, they are never really talking about poor Latinos, Black people, and Asians who work blue caller jobs. They are talking about working class Whites.

Soccer moms are not people of color, they are typically suburban White women.

Women and people of color have had to fight day in and day out to have our identities acknowledged and our issues addressed and now that they are starting to grow in the mainstream, the way to minimize them is to call them "identity politics".

[brush]

24. "...the way to minimize them is to call them "identity politics".

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2018, 03:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Spot on. Way to get to the heart of the matter, their agenda.

[kcr]

15. Holy shit

How many years is it going to take for some of you to get over the fact that a woman came that close to being president? Your eyeballs are still twitchin', aren't they?

[Squinch]

36. Name an issue that does not boil down to "identity politics." The whole concept is a racist, sexist

republican construct.

[Honeycombe8]

17. Oh, my gosh.

I think it's way past time for a woman President, but I'm not going to support a woman for the nominee, unless I think she'd make the best general election candidate and the best President. It's too dangerous a time for that.

The Republicans said that the only reason Obama won was because he was black and black people voted for him. They liked to say that, because it was insulting to him and in their minds, explained why a so-called black man won over a white man. But they were wrong. Obama won because he was the best candidate and people believed he'd be the best President. I know that's why I voted for him. His being biracial was a perk. But that's not why I voted for him, in case that's what you're thinking. That's what Republicans had trouble coming to terms with. That people judged him to be the better candidate over a distinguished white multi-millionaire white Republican man.

And so it will be for this candidate/President, if it turns out to be a female or a minority. He or she will win because people thought s/he was the best candidate and would make the best President.

This doesn't mean that ethnicity or race or gender doesn't go into the "plus" column. It does (for me, anyway). But I'll support as the nominee whoever I think will be the best, taking all things into consideration. Of course, I'll vote for whoever the Democrat is in the general election. No way would I hand over the Presidency to a Republican.

But history tells us that whoever is the front runner at this stage of the game is almost certainly not the one who will become the Democratic candidate.

[Trumpocalypse]

18. Why isn't a woman or person of color

the best person?

[McCamy Taylor]

20. See my post below. Plenty of nasty women and minorities in the GOP. It is a party thing, not a race/

gender thing.

[Adrahil]

42. They could be....

... but that isn't a given.

We'll enter the primary season in earnest in about 6 months. All the candidates will have a chance to show what they can do.

Then we'll see how things shake out.

[McCamy Taylor]

19. Women and minorities in the GOP are as mean as the white men.

The Democrats need to elect a DEMOCRAT.

[MrsCoffee]

21. Funny, I see folks repeating the same shit as when Hillary ran.

They support a woman on the ticket, just not woman X. Because...reasons.

And of course don’t forget, there are bad evil Republican women out there and we wouldn’t want to nominate someone just because they are a woman. Because...reasons.

Like we are all a bunch of idiots just looking to nominate anyone with a vagina.

If gender is dismissed as unimportant one more fucking time after an entire history of hundreds of years of nothing but men.....

Fuck. That. Shit.

We have some kickass women on our side who are going to run for President. We would be lucky to have any of them.

[Jarqui]

32. I'm for nominating the best person

I hope a woman will become president soon.
Democrats are blessed with some great women considering running for the job.

I'll support whoever is picked.

The two that intrigue me the most are Kamala and Beto but I don't know enough about either of them.

My preference will be for the person I think is best suited to win and do the job. They could be really capable but if they can't win, we'll never see how capable they would be.

I don't care to discuss male vs female candidate.
I don't care to discuss PoC vs white candidate.
I simply do not place much importance on either of those things when selecting a preference.
I'd be a hypocrite if I did because I'm against discrimination.
I'd have no problem with a gay candidate except I suspect they would have trouble winning and I would have to factor that in.

I'd love to see women and PoC taking these jobs because I think it represents who Democrats are as a party. Because that is the case, they will or will soon - just like Obama did.

I'm against "we have to pick a woman this time" or "we have to have a Latino on the ticket" or whatever related to race or sex. Because to me, it is discrimination.

[oberliner]

35. Why are Kamala and Beto the two that intrigue you most if you don't know much about them?

[Jarqui]

40. I didn't say "don't know much about them"

I said

"The two that intrigue me the most are Kamala and Beto but I don't know enough about either of them."

big difference between "don't know much" and "don't know enough"

I've seen things that intrigue like
- Kamala Harris during Kavanaugh & other hearings, on Rachel Maddow & Colbert and some of the media coverage of her for examples
- Beto during his campaign, the debate, on Colbert, Maher, NBC and some of the media coverage for examples

Both are possibilities but I need to learn more about them and some of the others.

It's really early ...

[oberliner]

54. Gotcha

Sorry about that.

It will definitely be an interesting primary.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

57. I think another big factor too is who we will be

running against. If somehow ( seems less likely every day) it is Dipshit..vs. some other GOPer. Running against trump will mean he has somehow survived all his crimes and it will take extreme savvy to stop him ( whatever that person looks like ).

That said... Beto ran "not against any person or thing". He ran FOR ideals. It is a very appealing approach.

[mr_lebowski]

75. +1 totally agree 100%

[calimary]

76. Yeah. First thing to study closely. Can they WIN???

First, you’ve gotta WIN. regardless your skin color, gender, age, religion, or whatever.

First, it HAS to be someone who can WIN.

[left-of-center2012]

34. I want the best person

regardless of race, gender, etc.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. Define "best"

Be careful . . . . .

[pnwmom]

51. That's what most people would say. And yet

we've never had a single woman President or Vice President.

Funny how that works.

[left-of-center2012]

65. i want the best person

Regardless of race, gender, etc.

[TCJ70]

72. Is that most people's fault, though?

Most people aren't the ones choosing running mates. In 2016 we had a female nominee and in 2008 we nearly did.

I don't think most people (on the D side anyway) deserve this particular criticism.

[Squinch]

37. Tammy Duckworth.

[Adrahil]

78. I love her, but do not think she will run yet....

She has an infant child, and another young kiddo. I think she should run later, though!

[WeekiWater]

38. It's time to turn over they keys. NT

[lancelyons]

47. Nominate the best person.

[Bucky]

49. You lost me with "color-blind racism"

I think it would be wonderful if our nominee represented America's growing diversity. In fact, I think it might be necessary.

In addition to the fact that "the US is built on a foundation of white supremacy and patriarchy", the country is also built on a vision of liberty and opportunity. Just trashing the country without appreciating the values that every day we strive to be truer to isn't a winning strategy.

We need a winning vision of the future, not just a menu of gripes. Once we get rid of the crooked cabal and charges the executive branch, we have a lot of work to do. Racism, the environment, the debt, and a dozen geopolitical hotspots around the world that Trump is ignoring or aggravating all need our attention. It's not enough to just be against the corrupt status quo.

We need solutions, and unity to work to implement them. And without the unity there won't be any real work getting done.

[Garrett78]

50. Well, there are plenty of resources to help you not feel lost.

I didn't say anything about how a candidate might campaign, so your post isn't relevant. My commentary was just that, my commentary. Anyway, there are plenty of opportunities for you and others to learn about colorblind racism. Here are several:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764215586826?journalCode=absb

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/color-blindness-is-counterproductive/405037/

And, with that, I'm out. Peace.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

58. I think racism/male chauvinism was

somewhat latent/hidden/unacceptable before Trump. He unleashed it a made it ok to come out of the closet.

Has permanent damage been done? How long will it take to undo the damage ?

[Bucky]

59. He added fuel to the fire, sure

But on the Right they've been reviving sexism since at least the early 90s Hillary bashing

[Buckeyeblue]

53. 2004 was the last time we ran two white males

And I'm guessing it will be the last time. And not because we are doing diversity for the sake of diversity, but because we have a qualified pool of diverse candidates.

[allgood33]

56. In 2016 the bet person for the job was a woman. 30% of the voters don't care for the best qualified

They just want to elect the best racist, sexist, and most ignorant.

[Vinca]

60. I think we should let the primary voters decide. What is absolutely, positively necessary is to be

sure everyone appears for the general election and casts a vote for the Democrat. If you stay home and pout because your choice isn't in the starring role, we're going to be stuck with Republicans for another nightmarish term. It may not be Trump, but if a President Tom Cotton doesn't send a chill up your spine I don't know what will.

[mia]

62. Kamala Harris could be the one.

I would like to learn more about her. Here's an interesting video that I just found.

[kentuck]

64. Go with the best person.

There are moments when the country needs inspiration. Being Democrats, we believe the people will choose the best representative for President, from the numerous primaries.

As Democrats, we are entrusted to the will of the people.

[VOX]

67. This time around, I have no clear favorite at the moment.

Subject to change, of course. Usually, I have an early favorite, but right now? I see some real promise with a few of the candidates. It’s just that no one leaps out from the current group of potential candidates.

Yet.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

A woman of color might be the best candidate or she might not be the best candidate.

[TCJ70]

71. It's not a good idea to discount someone from something based on their gender or race.

Have good ideas...Show an ability and desire to push for those ideas and not give in easily...Get my vote, whatever package that person might be wrapped in.

[karynnj]

73. The two choices need not be at odds

Let the primaries start and see which candidates motivate people. It very well may be that - just as in 2008 - the person with the most energy will not be a white male. Even then, it would behoove us to look at her/his actions on civil rights. Some, like Hillary Clinton, may have made women's and children's rights a centerpiece of their effort over decades. Others may have avoided working on those issues. In that case, their positions going forward and their words are very important.

However, IF a white male begins to gain traction, you (me and others who consider it important) should look at their record on the rights of women and other less priviledged people. I do not know the record of most of the potential candidate.

I would say that Biden's record is mixed, but on a timeline, he moved in the right direction from his terrible handling of Anita Hill to his being the sponsor of the Violence against Women Act and its international version. You could say that it is unfair to ignore that the early actions were in a different time period, but there were a few men his age - notably John Kerry - who blasted how those hearings were done in his Senate speech. But, he clearly progressed on this issue, possibly under the influence of Jill Biden.

Bernie Sanders was almost exclusively motivated by economic fairness - which often helps minorities and women - rather than social justice, which at most economic levels harms non male whites.

If I am convinced that a potential nominee has a good long term record on civil rights, including women's rights, AND I agreed most with that person on other issues, such as the environment, healthcare, worked on issues to empower people low on the totum pole more than the others AND I was impressed with that person's vision and integrity -- I would support that person in the primary no matter what their sex or race. (A ficticious example here is that I would love a 20 year younger John Kerry clone who was all in on running.)

At this point, I really do not have a candidate I am committed to in the primaries. Many are interesting, but I have not seen enough of them and don't know enough of their histories, positions etc to strongly advocate for them yet. I hope that I will find a candidate I am really impressed by - as happened in 2004, 2008 and 2012.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

74. WHY are you framing this as either-or, 2 mutually exclusive options? I reject that premise

Choose the best and if thats a woman and/or person of color - great If there is a tie or too close to call - THEN we weigh in favor of woman and/or person of color. Thats how affirmative action works

Of course part of determining "best" is how well they can reach across many different diverse constituencies - thats a perfectly valid criteria to apply.

[Garrett78]

79. It's others who have framed it that way. I'm disputing that framing.

As for a tie or too close to call or "best person," that's all subjective. How much value one places in the importance of electing more women and persons of color is the issue at hand.

The more we diminish racism and sexism, the more we diminish the Republican Party that is rooted in racism and sexism. And electing more women and persons of color is vital.

Take care.

[jalan48]

80. Let everyone interested run in the primaries. The voters will decide. If a woman or a POC

does not win the nomination this seems like a perfect time to chose a woman for Vice President on the ticket. If a woman or a POC wins the nomination outright through the primary system it's a moot point.

[MoonRiver]

81. We nominated the best person who happened to be a woman in 2016.

After that fiasco, I think we need to nominate the person most likely to defeat the POS.

[BannonsLiver]

83. This quote from former Raiders owner Al Davis sums up my view on our politics

In times like these, winning is the only thing that matters. How we get to that point is of little consequence to me. Why? Because the only thing I give two shits about is the W.