I didn't vote for a woman in 2016
I voted for Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, former U. S. Senator, the best vetted and hands down one of the most qualified people ever to run for the office.
I didn't vote for a black man in 2008; I voted for Barack Obama, former U. S. Senator, professor of constitutional law, and one of the most inspiring orators I had ever seen.
I didn't vote for a white man in 2004; I voted for John Kerry, former Secretary of State, former U. S. Senator, recipient of the Silver and Bronze stars, and anti-war activist.
I didn't vote for a white man in 2000; I voted for Al Gore, former Vice President, former U. S. Senator, one of the first to recognize the the coming of information technology, who sounded the alarm of global warming.
I will make electability arguments that will include factors such as race and gender, but only as applies to how it my help or hurt in certain demographics; none of that has anything to do with my personal preference. I want a capable, honorable candidate who can win. Period.
Comments like "too many penises" and "no more white guys" are simply bigoted, IMO, and I frankly cannot understand how they are permitted under the TOS.
I'm voting for the woman.
250 years is long enough to wait.
There are MANY excellent choices among Democratic woman, all as good as or better than the offered male candidates.
PS to those who are tempted to list all the horrible women in history and put their hands on their hips and say, "You gonna vote for her? Huh? Huh?" please stop and think. Don't do it. Don't embarrass yourself.
I mean, I get your point. And I definitely see a female candidate getting bonus points. I was SOOO excited at the prospect of woman for President in 2016. But other factors do matter. I thought HRC was BY FAR the best candidate.
Everyone will make decisions based on their own set of weighted criteria...if you want to weigh gender more heavily than anything else that's up to you. I'm just saying don't be surprised when people say you're discriminating based on gender.
And if, after 250 years in which 51% of the population has never been represented, someone says a vote for a member of that 51%, chosen from possible Democratic party primary contenders, is discriminatory, I'd have to just think they had lost their minds.
...unless you consider your own words a gotcha. Everyone has different priorities that they use to choose who to vote for. I just think it's odd to think someone can't do something based on what's between their legs. Seems to me we've been in that place before and it's not a great place to be.
"Seems to me we've been in that place before and it's not a great place to be...."
We've spent recorded history in one specific place-- that is, dominated by one and only one gender. False equivalencies aside, there has never been a corollary to that specific historical model, so no need to maintain the pretense of self-righteousness.
Damned odd, indeed.
But is reversing the scenario out of some sort of "revenge" (I know this isn't a best word but I can't think of another one at the moment) the best way to move forward? Is the answer to sexism/racism towards one group to have that group be sexist/racist towards the original sexists/racists? Don't get me wrong, I think we'd both agree oppression in any form is wrong.
Simply because there hasn't been a reversed situation doesn't make that reversed situation automatically correct...maybe that's a better way to say what I'm thinking about your response.
Do you think being male is an unacceptable trait to have in a president? That's what Squinch is saying. In my view it's a silly question. Anyone with good ideas and an attitude that expresses a willingness to push for those ideas and not give in easily is fine in my book...whatever gender they happen to be.
And no, I'm not saying maleness is an unacceptable trait to have in a president! I am pretty sure you are perfectly well aware I am not saying that.
I am saying femaleness is acceptable in a president, and its time we acted on that. After 250 years of maleness.
Jesus, you are working very hard to misunderstand and to put words in my mouth.
Well, that's exactly my point.
For 250 years, 51% of the population has been unrepresented because of what is between their legs. Its time for that to end.
We've never had an HIV-positive President.
Never had an LGBTQIA President.
Never had a single parent President.
Never had an Hispanic-American, Asian American, or Native American President.
Never had a President with decades worth of student loans.
I don't understand why gender is the next AND ONLY frontier for so many.
Last edited Wed Dec 19, 2018, 10:33 AM - Edit history (1)
Has the entire Adian American population "never been represented" because there's never been a President with Asian American facial features?
The US has spent BILLIONS combating AIDS, but to our knowledge we've never had an HIV-positive president.
I'm not sure I agree that the only way to be represented is if the President has the same physical characteristics as you.
If it's between a man and a woman, you're voting for the woman. For sure, we have many qualified women. But I personally think that making a final decision based on sex is not the best idea. But do what makes ya happy, I guess.
For the record, I hope we have a woman and/or a POC on the ticket.
There are many Democratic women who are just as qualified if not more qualified than some of the male candidates who are being considered. The fact is that a male candidate goes in with an advantage based solely on his being a man, regardless of qualifications.
Its pretty damning to admit that you don't care about policy, or if another candidate would address the issues you care most about. That the only requirement is that are of a member of a particular gender.
And I really don't see much policy differences among the Democratic primary contenders being floated. So yep. I'm going to vote to get representation for 51% of the population for the first time in 250 years.
I'm perfectly OK with you damning me for that.
Someone else brought up Beto O'Rourke. So if in the next primary, it was between Elizabeth Warren, or Beto, yet all the independent polls showed that Beto had a way better shot at winning the Presidency. Which probably would be the case as the GOP have had, much like for Hillary, a long head start on the smears and political assassination of Warren. While Beto is relatively new on the scene, and also has been already introduced and well received in Texas.
Because if that was the choice.....my heart would be with Warren. I would love to see her as President. Not just because it would be fantastic to finally have a woman break that highest of glass ceilings, but even more importantly because I am in tune with her positions, which are much like Sanders. And I am wary of Beto's more 'third way' appeasement approach, which hasn't worked for over a decade. I would if I could vote, hold my nose if I had to, and vote for Beto, because he would be our next best hope. Would you be voting for Warren....no matter what the polls say, simply because of her gender?
Why not at least add, as Chemisse did, "if all else is equal" to clarify then? ie....if they were polling neck and neck in both positions and electability. Sorry if it feels like I'm picking on you, but it SOUNDED like you are prepared to give a pass on everything, positions and electability, to vote for someone based on gender only.
Or, more accurately, none of the differences comes close to my desire to be represented. None of the differences comes close to overcoming my outrage that 51%.of the population has never been represented for 250 years.
The preferences I am seeing people express for Joe over Beto or Liz over Kamala are all expressed in terms of feelings, not policy. If you get right down to it, their policy differences are minimal. So my feeling is that THOSE expressions of preference are frivolous.
And it is my feeling that a desire to see 51% of The population represented for the first time in history is in no way frivolous.
I do find the near hysteria with which my assertion has been met to be disturbing and telling. It is easy to forget, sometimes, how little regard even my fellow Democrats have for women.
So you never answered about my example about Sarah Silverman. Who like many Democratic voting women, the choice between Cllinton's "differences" and Sanders "differences" WERE important enough to decide who she supported. The 'minimal' policy positions were not a 'frivolous' thing for her. In fact it compelled her switch from Hillary to Sanders.
I just think you are presuming a lot about all having the same policies. I used the Warren / O'Rourke example because that would be an interesting situation. As many here associate Warren with Sanders, who is much maligned by them, and O'Rourke with the more conservative wing of the party, and the Clintons. I regard Warren with great respect, and I think she'd be a fantastic President. And I'd rather her than Beto. But I'd vote Beto if he had the clear shot at winning the GE....not because he is a man.
But if ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, ie....if both were polling the same, I'd definitely back Warren. Because at that point, I would have the opportunity of choosing, finally, a female for President. I'd love to do that.
because I found it inane.
I think I've been clear about my position and have no desire to answer your list of "what abouts " nor address your "your opinion about x is wrong because it doesn't match mine" comments.
Have the last word.
I'm sure you'd say that that is her decision, and has nothing to do with you. That's fine. Not all Democrat woman voters have the same priorities. Its a big tent and all that. I agree. She just had a higher watermark than gender is all. So its odd that you'd openly admit your standards are much more one dimensional. "If the Democratic primary is between a woman and a man, I'm voting for the woman."
Okay after saying all that, I'm sorry. Because I do understand what you meant. That any candidate....whether man or woman... would be light years ahead of any Republican candidate. And so, ANY woman, at least the leading woman candidate, would have your vote. That is totally logical. All I was pointing out was that there were others who, while they also appreciate the fact that we are overdue having the highest decisions in the land being made through the life experience and eyes of a woman, are still more prone to look at policy first.....even if that means putting on hold a great historic first.
A better example would be if Warren had been in Sanders place in the last primary, and it was Elizabeth vs. Hillary. Or if it will be Warren vs. Harris, or Harris vs. Gillibrand. Because then you'd have to consider policies as well, minute though you feel they may be. But I guess you'd cross that bridge if it ever came up. You and me both!
best of the holidays.
misconstruing others' posts a hobby. I agree with what you actually said.
received here is very, very telling. And I would say disturbing, but if I had thought about it I could probably have predicted it.
I will not accept that the least qualified female Democrat is preferable to the most qualified male.
in 250 years and all the men erupt with cries of "sexism!"
I am seeing the humor. You?
Those all just have to be men disagreeing with you, right?
A woman says women should be represented for the first time
I'm well aware of how you tried to spin away from it (not that it's any better to claim that women can't "represent" men or vice versa)... but there's no escaping the fact that you're saying that for you (without even knowing who the options will be), the least qualified woman in the party is preferable to the most qualified male.
Yes... I see quite a bit of humor here.
I would vote for Joe Biden any day in the presidential primary before I'd even consider voting for Gillibrand or Harris. They are not nearly as qualified, don't have his heart and caring, and stabbed a great Senator in the back for their own badge burnishing. i would support Harris for VP, let her mature, learn not to jump to conclusions without getting the facts, then support her for President later. Gillibrand is nothing but a self-promoting serial backstabbing conserva-dem and I really don't want to have to vote for her, although between her and drumpf, I'd 100% vote for her, holding my nose the entire time.
I vote for the best candidate, regardless if it's a man or woman. I happily voted for HRC last time. I just think Joe is the best candidate and he's got the most early support among the Dems. We'll see what happens in the primaries.
He bears a lot of responsibility for Clarence Thomas, hence the 2000 election SC decision, hence all that came of that.
He has at least as many negatives as any Democratic female contender we might name - really tons more negatives - but somehow we don't hold them against him.
that whenever we discuss the relative merits of a male.vs a female.
She was a Hillary supporter. She was stoked that she could help usher in the first female President. Then she heard Bernie and switched to him after she heard his platform. She made a choice based on the actual issues she cared about and who she thought would deliver them. Of course she did switch back once the winner was decided, and even made a speech at the DNC for Hillary and chastised the grumblers to get over it.
Your opinion gives credence to those that have gotten chastised on here for daring to suggest that those so irrationally antagonistic towards Bernie, (but oddly can't name any platform position he stands for they disagree with), that they only voted for her because she was a woman......because you just admitted it!!!!
Seriously, you gotta keep that stuff to yourself.
The outrage is telling. I am saying that 51% of the population should be represented finally after 250 years. I am saying that, selecting from Democratic primary contenders, I will choose a woman over a man.
And there is a contingent here whose hair, head and shoes are all on fire over that.
I want representation. Deal with it.
What, like Catherine the Great? Like Boadicea? Like Jeanne d'Arc?
Women are the wave of the future. If it comes down to it in the primary, I will vote for the woman.
Times are changing. Society is changing. This is the Democratic legacy.
I want to make a difference in the world. Just voting for the man won't mean squat.
250 years of penises and no vaginas? And we can't say too many penises?
Watch me. Too many penises. I want one of the highly qualified women who are considering running on the Democratic ticket to be our nominee. Too many penises.
There aren't differences between most of the candidates that are big enough to change my mind. And after seeing a woman win and have it taken away from her.... Nah, It's beyond fucking time.
Because we are so fucking stupid that we just want anyone with a vagina?
It couldn't possibly be that the women in the Democratic Party who have said they might run are fucking ridiculously qualified. Nah, that couldn't be it at all.
Stupid fucking argument that I expect to see repeated Ad fucking nauseam around here.
FWIW, I was an HRC partisan. Loved her. I have my eye on Kamala Harris right now. I'm perfectly happy voting for women and POC.
The poster is saying they would vote for someone like Joni Ernst, Sarah Palin or Nikki Haley under the right set of circumstances.
Because penis, yall1!1!
Democratic primary contender that you think equates with Ernst, Palin or Haley.
Key word here being circumstances
Ill wait while you look up that word.
The poster was embracing women Democratic candidates. Not Palin, or Haley, or who-the-f**k. But Democratic believers.
It seems that even Dems are against women....
Women are the wave of the future. They are now gaining power. Why shouldn't we support them?
I supported the previous nominee in both the primaries and the general gleefully. We may well have a female nominee in 2020. Who knows? I know I dont in December 2018, and neither do you.
I dont reflexively eliminate candidates based on their genitalia. That kind of thinking is for imbeciles.
represented that we are imbeciles for wanting to be represented.
Mansplain on, dear.
Do you think that was just by accident? If the answer is no, then you have to acknowledge that discrimination has been an issue. If that's the case, then why do you get upset at those of us who wish to address that? And if the answer is yes, well...
I suppose I could draw you a picture. Not sure how much clearer I can make it.
a vagina that would be unacceptable to you?
Give us the name of the woman from the cohort we're talking about - Democratic party primary contenders- that strikes terror in your heart should they be nominated?
presented with has had big negatives for me too. For example Joe trashed Anita Hill, gave us Clarence Thomas which gave us the bush presidency, citizens United, and basically everything that horrified me today.
Yet we all love Joe.
So in a matchup, I'd vote for her.
I dont like what she did, bit I'd vote for her against any of the men being floated.
I made the argument that Beto has the "it" factor and that his fundraising and excitement gives us the best chance to win. What we see on this website is "We have to have diversity and almost a its our turn mantra. This will play exactly into republican hands.
If we look like we only care about gender and racial politics it will turn off a lot of people. If we look like we are choosing the best candiadte. Look at the comments that if we put up 2 white males then we will lose or we won't have our own women won't come out and support the ticket. That is a temper tantrum.
Oh noes, you might have to vote for a woman in 2020. Temper tantrum indeed.
You are acting out after I make a simple non offending statement. You take it personally. Like you I probably have been the recipient of as much discrimination as you. My grandmother was arrested for cavorting with the chinese in 1910. ( Ihae the actual article. My dad couldn't swim in the public pools in St. Louis. We were denied a mortgage in 1962 and we had a 50% down payment.
All I hear is Oh Poor me that I might have to vote for a woman. What bullshit.
I have done quite well in life. I have owned my own business for 18 years. My parents were tough as nails. We grew up behind a storefront in a laundry. I shared a twin bed with my brother until I was in 4th grade. One thing my parents taught me is to never feel sorry for yourself.
I hear a lot of people feeling sorry for themselves and demanding something that is selfish.
"If we look like we only care about gender and racial politics it will turn off a lot of people."
That is a pretty privileged statement right there. Think about it. Why is it only "racial politics" when we are talking about equality for women and people of color. Think about that.
White men represent "the standard" and are judged only by their individual qualities. Women and people of color enter into the conversation with marks against them. Their identities are already considered by White men and they are typically considered good "despite" being a woman or person of color. You are hearing the frustration of 240+ years of having little to no representation of women and people of color in the highest levels of government of what is supposed to be the "greatest, most diverse, and equality promoting society on earth" and you call it a "temper tantrum". You seem to not be able to step into the shoes of women or people of color to see from their perspective how that looks, how it feels to know you represent more than 50% of the population (in the case of women) and more than 40% for people of color, and see nothing like that in the make up of the power structure.
You say Beto has the it factor. He lost. Like Stacey Abrams who had the "it factor" in Georgia and lost by less, like Andrew Gilium who had the "it factor" by coming out of nowhere and almost winning the governorship of Florida. Neither of them are being pushed and promoted to run for President. Why not? They have similar stories and qualifications. Think about that for awhile, then come back and talk about "temper tantrums".
Gillum is a mayor which is a municipal level position. Abrams comes closer as a state rep. Neither are federal level, which is of course the highest echelon of our political structure.
Also, Ive seen Gillum and Abrams mentioned here as 2020 candidates. That didnt offend me at all since Im in the more the merrier camp. You never know. One of them could get hot. Stranger things have happened. I say we all participate and see what happens. Thats usually the best way to go.
Because until very recently, American politics, both the good AND the bad, has been a white mans game. Whiteness is both a social construct and an invisible standard.
Erasing diversity but saying you dont care about it is not helpful.
Not invisible at all. When you have Black children identifying the White doll as pretty, and good, and the doll who looks like them as "ugly" and "naughty", that is a pretty visible standard. We are talking about experiments replicated decades apart while we are trying to say that we have come so far in our attitudes about race.
You are absolutely correct, colorblindness is a privilege of those who aren't "colored" and voting for the "best candidate" when 98% of those who were elected have been White and 100% have been men, is a poke in the eye to "diversity".
Than invisible at this point in history, but its so pervasive there is s lot of push back when pointing it out. As evidenced by this thread in fact
Default is a very fitting word.
I was told once by a wise person, "If you do nothing in the US, by default you will grow up Christian, and adhering to the standards of White men."
It's about representation, not quotas.
And for many, Hillary's gender and Barack's race were additional reasons to vote for them - on life experience as well as policy.
Not to mention, not everyone will rank a set of candidates in the same order ... nor would we rank the importance of issues in the same order. With ANY canddiate, you could come up with something in their life experience that favors them.
Not to mention, remember in 2008 when each side tried to diminish the opponent's difference from white male. There were claims that Obama, who was half white and raised by his white relatives was not "black" enough. Then, there were comments, that while women were often held back, HRC was the First Lady for 8 years, and when her interest was known, no one competed against her in the Democratic primary for Senator. She also was almost immediately considered a likely future President. In 2008, she had BC in her corner. It made an argument that she had a tougher path questionable.
I consider diversity a plus, but not definitive. I think most people think that way. (In other words, I do agree with you).
Your words are twisted and the narrative is twisted into...you are anti-......
Im sure the blank will be filled for me.
In the primary, each of us should vote for the person with whom we agree with on the issues most important to us and/or inspires us as a speaker, as a person etc. Then in the general election, vote for the winner of the Democratic primary because it will likely be true that on every important issue the Democrat will be between acceptable, good and great ... and the Republican will be unacceptable.
their legs or the color of their skin.
Rather than a myopic litmus test approach based solely on gender. What a novel idea. More should try it.
that behind that wall of white penises is ALWAYS a plethora of highly qualified women and poc.
women do govern differently. poc do govern differently.
facts. i am basing my decision on facts that we need to govern differently.
This party's last two nominees have been 1) A black man and 2) a white woman. I think our party is perfectly happy to nominate and vote for women and POC. I certainly am with the right candidates. Out pf the my current top 4 prospects, only one of them is a white guy.
... regardless of race or gender.
But we get to have spirited discussion about and vote on who that candidate is going to be.
I'm choosing the woman.
It goes without saying that I will vote for the Democrat in the general.
By the way, you forgot 8 years of being a very involved FLOTUS preceding her tenures as Senator & SoS. She was I believe *THE MOST* qualified candidate to ever run for the office.
And you know what folks? Despite those realities, and on top of all that, having the highest possible name recognition ... She did NOT 'win'.
Saying 'she won' because she won the popular vote is like saying your NFL team won because they scored 3TD/XP for 21 points, when the other team kicked 8 FG's for 24 points. You got more TD's, but you didn't WIN. Them's ain't the rules.
Yes she got f'd over by Donald and Russia and Comey and the Media and Facebook and all manner of other stuff, she deserved to win, should've won, but she factually ... did not win. Saying she won is silliness.
Point is, if any woman ever had the bona-fides and the smarts and the proven ability and the experience and the money and the organization TO WIN, it was Hillary, 2016.
Ergo, I don't really think we should 'assume' Hillary's 'level of success' in winning 3M more votes, somehow automatically transfers to the NEXT female candidate, just by virtue of gender, as some people seem inclined to do. Just because she did it, as a woman, doesn't mean ANY woman ... could accomplish the same. In fact, you sell her short when you imply that.
A woman, any woman, will face a steeper uphill climb than a man, all other things being equal. It sucks, it's unfair, but it's a reality we MUST practically consider, if for no other reason than the stakes are TOO HIGH this time.
I think I speak for a good many people here when I say ... Trump CANNOT win in 2020, and ALL else ... is de-facto ... Secondary.
Now, if the Pubbies drop Trump and magically nominate a, say, Jon Huntsman ... I may become bit more flexible on this subject.
but accepting that reality is not an option.
If the Democratic party does not fight for equality, who will?
Will suffice for ME, given the expected stakes in 2020. The gender of our nominee is not the end-all be-all when it comes to 'fighting for equality' by our party.
In the even that Trump is gone and the Pubbies have nominated someone who I don't fear will hasten the end of the damn world dramatically like IQ45, I'm prepared to be a little more flexible on making 'the female gender' my most important defining characteristic of the Democratic nominee.
Just speaking for myself, and I'm not saying 'I'm right', it's just how I feel.
Why? Because Im not a bigot and I can think, process nuance etc. Thats what adults do.
I voted for Obama. I also voted for a black man.
I voted for Clinton. I also voted for a woman.
And "no more white guys" is as oppressive and injurious to both you and I as is a house fly.
You can pretend it's an issue. I won't.
Where it gets into the heart of the matter is when you talk about "electability arguments. This is in no way a comment on you LongtimeAZDem. I don't know you at all. The problem is that there are way too many people for whom "electability" only means a White man given a women or person of color with the exact same or better qualifications. You cannot have "electability" arguments without taking into account the effects of 400+ years of sexism and racism which have been institutionalized and have permeated the mentality of almost everyone in the country, including women and people of color who have bought into the idea that women and people of color are just inferior.
The struggle for many people of color and women in this country is that we want to see people in power who represent us, who look like us, and understand our experiences. The Presidency and most of the history of Congress have been representative of the experience of White Christian men. In 240+ years we have had exactly one Black man as President and one woman as Speaker of the House. One of the most qualified women to ever run for office was attacked mercilessly for the affairs of her husband while the idiot who stumbled into the White House was nowhere near as scrutinized for his own well known history of affairs. Hillary carried around the stain of Bill's actions and for Trump it did not matter.
The phrase "who can win" is the operative phrase and is problematic for the reasons I stated above. You have Avenatti talking about "It has to be a White man". You have people talking up Joe Biden (who I like but...) who has not been able to make it out of a primary. We as a nation have to continue to ask ourselves why it is only women and people of color who are routinely scrutinized about their ability to win. It isn't the candidate it is the society that is reflected in those calculations.
I totally agree regarding the blanket statements like "too many penises" and the like. Candidates should not be rejected out of hand based on their gender, in either direction. Those statements are typically out of frustration and likely indicate, poorly, the frustration and sentiment I shared earlier about wanting the candidate to actually represent an experience of a historically marginalized group.
.... first and foremost on who I believe to be the most qualified person to hold the position. It's just common sense and logic. There is no rational argument otherwise. If you vote for Kamala Harris, you should vote for her because you believe she is the most qualified person for the job who happens to be a person of color and a woman. If you vote for Cory Booker, you should vote for him because you feel he is the most qualified person for the job who happens to be a person of color and a man, and likewise for every person mounting a campaign for the nomination.
The experience of coming of age as a woman in this country, especially for older women, means having struggled through unequal standards in school, discrimination in work, sexual harassment, fear for physical safety, economic realities of motherhood, childcare and divorce, and the next level of disdain for the woman of age who championed and fought for other women and children along the way.
THAT is what I want, at long last. I'm not sure there will be another in my lifetime.
I get what you're saying.
What I have a hard time understanding is why it's so important to separate part of a candidates identity from the rest of themselves. Their life experience whether it's as a woman, man, white, black, gay or whatever the case may be is a part of who they are and their identity.
We should be looking at the whole of a person, both personally and professionally, when making these decisions.
President Obama was a great president partly because of his own personal life experience as a black man, how it shaped him and how he became a great man of character. Take his color away and it changes the kind of person he is at a fundamental level.
How I choose a candidate is far more than ideology, political stance and voting record.
We've had nothing but men for president throughout history. But when women say it's time for a woman for president, you think that's not okay. It's simply been a random accident that men keep getting elected. We just have to wait for a qualified and electable woman to finally turn up in the random electable lottery someday, even though it's been a man for over 200 years now.
There is no logic in that whatsoever. If the results are the same every time, you don't keep doing things the same way but expect a different result. If you want a different outcome, you have to change it up. In other words, if you genuinely want a woman for president, you have to actively seek out change after hundreds of years of nothing but men. You have to actively seek out women and vote for them, with intention. The point isn't that qualification doesn't matter. The point is that there ARE women who are qualified.