2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy picking a female VP would be advantageous to Hillary
Ok, maybe I'm the only odd ball who thinks this, but I think that Hillary should pick a woman for VP, and if not Warren, then some other female politician.
I just think that would truly be a historic national ticket, not one but two women, and so interesting to watch a race between the "women ticket" against the traditional "white male ticket", (because I'm pretty sure Trump will choose another white male for his VP)
Would that be a fascinating contest, or what?
And, since women outnumber men as far as the US population goes, it would seem to hold a big advantage for Hillary to do something like this.
Am I way off base, or what?

flor-de-jasmim
(2,193 posts)Hope for a man on the ticket to have a moderating influence (that should have been in quotes). Two women on the ticket might be too radical for them.
One Black Sheep
(458 posts)that is, for Hillary to pick a woman of color as her VP!
Even I can see that may be too radical still, even for today's America, lol.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)One Black Sheep
(458 posts)now that would be radical! Even more than say, picking a self described atheist. Automatic doom and big loss, even in today's America...
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I've said on DU a number of times i think she might be a more aggressive President than her husband.
She's smart as hell, knows where the levers of power are hidden after eight years as first spouse, has Barack as a literal kitchen cabinet and is attractive to boot.
What's not to love?
metroins
(2,550 posts)I don't think men care whether it's 1 woman or 2 or 0.
It's not even a factor in my vote or other men that I know of.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Pick the best person for the job. Often for a VP, that means they need to come from a swing state, and help balance out the ticket. If it happens to be a woman, great, but she shouldn't pick somebody just because she is a woman.
One Black Sheep
(458 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)No one even asks whether gender is the reason they are picking a man. Choosing someone for their gender only becomes a problem when the gender in question is female.
In other words, men are free to benefit from male mentorship and influence, but when a woman tries to be a mentor to other women and use her influence to help other women succeed, suddenly people start crying, "Sexist!" "Unfair!" "She's not the best person for the job!"
Madam Mossfern
(2,340 posts)It bothers me when her supporters emphasize that she should be supported because she's a woman. Yes a woman President would be a first, but being a demographic first is not a valid reason for supporting a candidate. Hillary should pick a running mate who will do well in the debate between Vice Presidential candidates, will be a ferocious attack dog for her when necessary, and whom she know the electorate will agree would be a good President if for some reason Clinton can no longer serve.
One Black Sheep
(458 posts)Madam Mossfern
(2,340 posts)That doesn't rule out Elizabeth Warren.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Men have dominated long enough.
Being a woman does not decide my vote, but it is a point I consider when i look the policies a candidate champions.
woolldog
(8,791 posts)Hillary can't win by speaking to women alone. She needs to keep her losing margin with men respectable. A two female ticket won't do that. It's not going to win her any more female votes. And it will further alienate men.
One Black Sheep
(458 posts)I am not the only one proposing it! That is for damn sure.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)>>>Would that be a fascinating contest, or what? >>>>
it's fascinating as HELL.
To people who have grown up, out and/or beyond that.... well, they might be more concerned w. issues (REAL issues, not ID politics), qualifications, temperament, political philosophy, economic philosophy, etc.
Grown-up stuff, in other words.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)to balance the ticket and make her candidacy somehow more palatable?
No one recognizes the casual sexism inherent in this position?
Hillary is our Democratic nominee. She just happens to be a woman. Which is great, and historic, and all.
Elizabeth Warren has come out swinging at Trump harder and stronger than anyone else, her 'progressive' Wall Street vs Main Street credentials are impeccable, she is already well-recognized nationally...and she just happens to be a woman.
Add it all up, and Clinton/Warren would be a dynamic candidacy of two experienced, qualified candidates unmatched by any of the Republican candidates!
And if an "all female" Democratic ticket inspires you in any way, good for you! 44 men and counting, right?
It can be, and should be, nothing but a positive attribute here in the 21st Century!
One Black Sheep
(458 posts)I felt like I was fighting a losing battle here...heh.
BooScout
(10,407 posts)I can't think of anyone more qualified and one who could help unite the party better than Warren. That she happens to be a woman has nothing to do with it.
Ino
(3,366 posts)randr
(12,524 posts)will pick the candidate that delivers the most EC votes. Geography, ethnicity, and populism are the key factors. She already has the gender issue covered.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)consideration I have been really liking this idea. People that won't vote for women, won't vote for Clinton whether there is another woman on the ticket or not. Strong voices of women to be heard all this time, would be great. One of the nifty I have seen in this primary, is so many of the voices are women, and that has been a blast.
Optically, it will not have the image of the man, VP, being in the supportive role we see so much with women, but two women in autonomy.
The glass ceiling not only broken, or shattered, but obliterated.
I have since really come to love the idea of two woman ticket.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)This idea that women have more wisdom than men is a bit sexist and ridiculous. There is no evidence that one gender would be any better than the other as a leader. Candidates should be chosen for their character and qualifications, not their gender or their race or their perceived elecatability.
Do you disagree?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)I think it is safe to assume you want an all-female ticket. That's what is most important to you that a specific gender is leading the way.
Your words, not mine...
Isn't that just as bad as someone here saying they 'love the idea of an all-male ticket?'
Maybe you can be so kind to clarify what you mean here?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)It is manipulative, dishonest, wrong, ... So why would I waste time with it?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)For me, it would depend entirely on the woman chosen. And I can't really think of any that would make Hillary even remotely palatable...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I've said on DU a number of times i think she might be a more aggressive President than her husband.
She's smart as hell, knows where the levers of power are hidden after eight years as first spouse, has Barack as a literal kitchen cabinet and is attractive to boot.
What's not to love?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I would imagine he would choose a person of color, and possibly a female.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/politics/paul-manafort-donald-trump-vice-president/
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I guess the most likely scenario is that he would pick a white male, but who knows.
Tikki
(14,811 posts)Someone like Julian Castro or Kamala Harris.
Tikki
SCantiGOP
(14,398 posts)I think he/they are clueless enough to think that would dispel some of the outrage people have about his attitude toward, and comments about, women.
Then, he could say "See my woman" like he pointed out "my African American" to show he wasn't racist.