Is anyone else tired of the new talking point that it is sexist if you

[jezebel321]

like a male candidate over the females? And heaven forbid its a white male! Or oh my God a young white male.
The cries of sexism are starting to get really grating to me.

I'm a 37 year old white woman, am I sexist if E Warren isn't my top choice? Am I racist that Kamala Harris isn't?

Politics is about the campaign. For some people it is policy paper driven, not for others. If that was the case we wouldn't need campaigns, we would just look at their resumes and choose the "most qualified".

I get it if Elizabeth Warren is your first choice. Or Kamala. But denigrating the others and especially calling it sexist that for some voters they aren't automatically at the top of the polls is going to chase off a lot of voters who will be needed later.

sorry for the rant

[appalachiablue]

1. When the SS- scold squad gets that targeted and the volume is

unbearable, ya just gotta say no-- to guilt trips, foolishness, or whatevah

[brush]

2. Our ticket should reflect the make-up of our party, thus two white males is out...

Pair one with a woman and/or POC then we're talking.

This is not the '80s or '90s, it's 2019 and our base has much diversity. If out ticket does not reflect that we risk many voters staying home to show their lack of enthusiasm for a non-inclusive ticket.

We should not even think about doing that. Sexism and a lack of diversity will re-install trump.

[UniteFightBack]

9. Guess what...the average everyday Dem...ain't thinking like this. nt

[dawg day]

18. Really? Do you think the Democratic base is white men?

And that maybe the REAL base-- people of color and women-- might at least be interested in knowing there's a good chance that people like them might someday be president?

We should all feel free to support who we want... but let's not pretend that going back to an all-white-male ticket is going to please many of the people who faithfully vote D in elections.

[brush]

20. You must've responded to the wrong person. You repeated my argument.

The ticket has to reflect the diversity of the party's base or we risk voters staying home.

[UniteFightBack]

39. Did you purposely not read the one sentence I wrote where I said no such thing as you claim?

I said everyday Dem's are not thinking like this they are thinking about one thing and that is ousting rump.

That includes black people too and they will pick the best person to do that no matter what color or sex they are.

[UniteFightBack]

41. people of color and women-- might at least be interested in knowing there's a good chance that

people like them might someday be president?


What the fuck about Obama. I'm tired of all the tests ..you go ahead and have at it....my eyes are on the prize.

[brush]

19. Not so. The base of the party, those who show up to vote are POCs and women.

White male Dems are not the majority in the party anymore. Where have you been in the last few election cycles. Who do think made up the majority of the blue wave in November?

[UniteFightBack]

40. Please point out where I said ANYTHING remotely close to what you are saying. And it

was more than just POC that turned out in 2018.

[brush]

54. Ahhh..."the average, everyday Dem" are mostly women and POCs. There are of course...

progressive white males (and I wish there were more), but let's be real, 70% of white men vote repug.

[Demsrule86]

14. Our ticket should be a wining one and reflect the best person for the job...no

No matter what their sex.

[bloom]

42. Then E. Warren is the obvious choice.

She has the background as well as the policy initiatives and ideas which will move our country forward.

Trouble is that women have to be 10 times better than men before some people will give them credit. I expect better from Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

49. What state can she deliver? Massachusetts is going blue and we lose her Senate seat.

A repugnant GOP governor appoints her replacement. We need the Senate every bit as much as the presidency.

[crazytown]

51. Warren is a daughter of the plains

not New York.

[Mr Tibbs]

34. Running candidates based on gender and race

Instead of policy would be a disaster.

[Skittles]

3. very much so

[Doreen]

4. Hey, I am a old white female

and even though there is something that I like about all of the canidates I seem to like an old white man the most.

I could care less about the sex, age, or color. I will admit that we need to have a woman either as president or vice. Two men or two women at the same time is not acceptable at this point.

[Polly Hennessey]

5. I am beginning to hope

our candidate is Biden. I am a white woman. I want to win. I want the Idiot gone. I care not whether anyone thinks I am sexist or not. Careful about the sexist thing. If pushed too far it just starts sounding silly.

[elleng]

6. Thanks. With you.

and a Biden/Pete sounds fine to me.

[ms liberty]

30. I like that ticket too, elleng. I want to win. Period. n/t

[highplainsdem]

7. Yes. I am. I was thrilled to have Hillary Clinton as our nominee in 2016, but that wasn't just

because of her gender -- it was because I believed she had the best chance of beating Trump (and she did win the popular vote).

I'm not sure our country can survive 8 years of Trump, so it's absolutely essential that we have the strongest possible nominee to run against him.

If I thought that was one of the female candidates, I'd be listing her as my preference.

At this point, I don't think any of them have as good a chance as Biden has of beating Trump.

[UniteFightBack]

8. Well my black female boss today said she's all in for Biden. So I guess she's all that stuff too.nt

[Kath2]

10. Whoever is most likely to get tRump out of office will get my vote.

Regardless of gender or race.

[Meowmee]

11. I am not worried about any of that- I want to win

And to end this nightmare. I think Biden has the greatest chance to win. That is the only thing that really matters now. That is what we need to focus on. I am also very concerned with the recent news that election machines in Florida were accessed by Russian hackers. Which is what I have suspected for a long time. We are going to need a huge turn out.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. It's not new-- it pops up every time a woman runs. Or doesn't run...

the concept of the "best candidate" gets lost in...

the best female candidate

the best Black candidate

the best Hispanic candidate

etc etc

Oh, and by the way, I like a lot of candidates, and I personally don't care about age, race, gender, sexuality, or much else besides how they are going to do the job.

[Demsrule86]

15. Balancing a ticket by geography still makes sense...Biden/ Ryan would take Ohio.

Ryan is very popular in Ohio. Is that sexist? I don't think so. Deny the GOP Ohio and they lose. No Republican has ever won without Ohio.

[Celerity]

16. Tim Ryan has zero chance to be VP

Tim Ryan Said Nancy Pelosi Is Just As Unpopular As Donald Trump And The House Should Get New Leadership

“She’s a very unpopular figure in many parts of the country,” the Ohio Democrat said Wednesday morning.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryancbrooks/tim-ryan-nancy-pelosi-unpopular-donald-trump

[Demsrule86]

50. Honestly I don't care about that AOC wasn't great about Nancy either.

We are talking about winning Ohio and stopping Trump. The GOP can't win without Ohio. And you bring up politics. Until we make the best choices based on fact and not emotion (must fall in love), we will continue to lose. Winning is a choice. You pick the candidate who can lead your party to victory...we play politics in a self destructive overly emotional way too much and have lost elections as a result.

[Celerity]

52. AOC supported Pelosi, you are inferring non-factual info based on that RW-generated tosh from months

ago about that 'protest' that certain people falsely tried to say was against Pelosi. That was debunked on here dozens of times, especially when AOC herself said she supported Nancy for speaker.

Ryan will never be VP. The outrage would be through the roof. Also, two white males, both centrist, is a no go. Doesn't come close to broadening the ticket enough. The base (women and POC) are not going to be nearly as energised compared to other combos.

There is no hard evidence Ryan can even deliver Ohio.

You make these myriad pronouncements about certain candidates being basically the only way, or if not the only way, then by far the best way to re-gain the POTUS. They are nothing more than educated guesses and you trying to impose your wishes on everyone else.

[tritsofme]

56. Ryan has never won a statewide race...not sure what he done to demonstrate such strong

statewide popularity that his presence on the ticket would tip the scales.

[Demsrule86]

60. He is beloved in Ohio.

[tritsofme]

62. Curious then, why do you suppose has he never tried for governor or US Senate?

[Demsrule86]

63. Why would he? He likes being a rep...should he run against Sherrod?

He can win ohio.

[tritsofme]

64. If he is as popular as you indicate, he may have been able to take down Portman in 2016.

Definitely more productive than a quixotic presidential campaign.

[Demsrule86]

66. He is running for VP. Ohio is the most important state.

[TygrBright]

13. Haven't heard that one, but I'll stay alert for it.

I've heard plenty of discussion about the value of redressing more than 200 years of systemic bias in favor of white males by encouraging and supporting candidates from other demographic groups, but I haven't actually heard Democrats accusing other Democrats of being "sexist" for supporting qualified candidates who ARE white males.

I've also heard a lot of very thoughtful and important discussion of systemic bias in the Party's various processes for identifying and supporting candidates, and how to change that, which I think is highly appropriate.

Of course, I'm sure it's possible that the escalating pressure to focus on making our candidate slates and candidate selections and (ultimately) roster of elected Democrats more closely align with the actual demographic make-up of the electorate itself does make some people worry about whether that goal should be prioritized over the goal of simply winning elections, especially when there's so much at stake.

But there's always so much at stake.

And if we want to build a Party that will have a solid and sustainable base of support in a rapidly diversifying population, it might be worthwhile to consider how we demonstrate the Party's response to those who've spent more than two centuries at the back of, or being dragged behind, the bus.

We do not win the struggle for equity by politely asking those benefiting from unearned privilege to consider changing the system to eliminate that privilege.

wearily,
Bright

[Honeycombe8]

17. Yep. nt

[leftofcool]

21. I have been hearing this and promptly ignored it

[Steven Maurer]

22. I'm for Kamala. You're neither sexist or racist if she's not your #1

In fact, I've never heard of this kind of argumentation. I suppose there are idiots out there, but seriously does anyone think this behavior actually helps the candidate they prefer?

[pnwmom]

23. It is only sexist when people say that our next nominee needs to be a white male,

because we already had a woman, and she lost.

And I've read that a lot, even here.

[bloom]

43. I see that as the 'suggested' (underlying) message

when people insist we need Biden or some other male to win.

Esp. when people think we need either Biden or Sanders - who are worlds apart.

[kcr]

24. No, but I sure am tired of hearing about "safe," "normal" choices.

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2019, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)

Funny how that isn't getting called out for what it is.

[JI7]

25. one of my Favorites is a white male candidate and i'm not feeling what you are feeling

[Kurt V.]

26. depends on your reasons. if you're consciously picking one over the other bc of sex or race

then it's sexist or racist. simple

[bloom]

44. Sexism and racism

is picking the white male over other candidates.

Because white males expect to have all the power all the time.

People should take note of the 2018 election. Democrats are voting for women and POC.

It's time to move our country forward. Democrats can do that. Republicans sure as hell won't.

I'm tired of those who would hold our country back pushing for the 'normal' white male.

White men do not have a lock on the Democratic party - or the country.

[madaboutharry]

27. I agree.

I think it is just as wrong to exclude a candidate because they are a man.

Calling someone a sexist or a racist because they support a white male candidate is stupid. A person should support the candidate that they feel possesses the skills, the temperament, the intellect, and the vision to do a great job.

[robbedvoter]

28. Nope. Not tired at all.

here's a thread for your enlightenment

Link to tweet

[ms liberty]

31. Hillary Clinton was taken seriously and was rejected because

The RWNJ's have successfully propagandized against her since 1991. Yea, 25 years of propaganda worked like a charm. Some of the 2016 voters grew up being taught that she was evil and someday they would have to vote against her to stop her in her quest to take over America. That's what it boils down to, in a nutshell. I have seen it IRL often enough to recognize it was a real thing for some. She could not overcome that smearing enough to win big enough to surpass the amount of votes needed to beat election fraud. It sucks, but it is what it is, and we're living with the consequences.

[bloom]

46. Republicans will likely have more money

They will continue to have FOX news and their other propaganda outlets.

Any candidate by the Democrats will have to overcome their smear campaign.

I recognize the power of the 25+ years against HRC.

I would love to see a Warren / Harris ticket.

I think after the MeToo stuff - people are noticing sexism more. If there were a women's ticket the sexism would just ooze out of the Republicans everywhere. I think we would see a lot of the more educated Republican women jumping off of that boat - many of them already are.

[Laelth]

29. Most Democrats just want to win in 2020.

In my experience, the gender dynamic you describe in the OP is less prominent now than it has been in elections past.

-Laelth

[beachbum bob]

32. I care about taking back our country and there are candidates that can not do that at the national

level, some are women, some are POC, some are gay. That doesn't mean that I am anti-gay, anti-female or a racist. I am realist. I suggest more people around here try that.

[bloom]

47. actually - your concepts do sound sexist.

So-called 'realism' is often sexist (and/or racist).

[IluvPitties]

33. We need to focus on policy and beating Trump.

Given our field, there is a good chance a woman, a person of color or a gay man make it to the ticket. Let's see who's the best person to defeat Trump and let's support her or him.

The debates will tell the story.

[Funtatlaguy]

36. Bingo. The late June Dem debates are EXTREMELY important.

[Codeine]

35. Nobody has said that.

Some people DO make patently sexist arguments, but folks who just genuinely one of our fantastic male candidates aren’t sexist and shouldn’t concern themselves with this imaginary charge.

[Kahuna7]

37. I think it's ridiculous. I voted for Obama and Hillary because I believed them

to be intelligent, competent and compassionate and that they would do the right thing for Americans. Not because of their race or gender. And I won't vote based on gender or race this time.

[FakeNoose]

38. Why do we attack one another when "your choice isn't my choice"?

That's how I see it. I think Liz Warren and Kamala Harris are fantastic women, but neither are my first choice to be our party's nominee. But that doesn't make me a racist or a sexist, and yet we Democrats are playing that card against each other. It has to stop or we will never have unity by November 2020.

I've decided to go for Joe Biden in the primary race. But if Biden doesn't win I pledge to support our party's nominee whoever he/she may be. Every Democratic candidate is exceptional in one way or another.

What REALLY frosts me is when the conservative pundits jump on this discord and use it against us. If we Dems disagree it's a private matter and it should be worked out among friends in a friendly, positive atmosphere. When Repukes and Libertarians start chiming in, you know they want to only cause trouble and increase the arguments between the Dems.

[customerserviceguy]

45. I'm tired of it

It seems like if you say anything negative about a female candidate or their positions, then you are automatically sexist. At least that's how the scolding went for me when I made comments on Elizabeth Warren's apparent image recently.

[bloom]

48. Trouble is - if the Democrats here can't recognize their sexism and racism

then that's a problem.

Yes - I see the argument that their preference for men is 'realist' to be a sexist argument.

People need to notice that women are winning. At the local level - where they have not won before - and at the national level.

There are plenty of people who recognize the strengths of Warren, Harris, and Klobachur. We need to make sure the media is not ignoring them.

There is nothing essential that any white male candidate has going for him that one of these women don't have.

I am looking forward to the debates.

[loves_da_dems]

53. I don't think it's sexist

It just reflects the diversity of our base. For far too long white men have been in charge of the party. It's time for younger particularly women of color to lead now. We should not nominate two old white dudes. AOC is so refreshing, I really wish she could be our nominee.

She would win in a landslide.

[qazplm135]

55. You know what's really ridiculous?

That it's 2019 and we've still never had a female President.

No wait, not ridiculous, fucking embarrassing.

If you want moderate, then pick Harris.
You want progressive, then pick Warren.

[tritsofme]

57. And if you don't particularly care for either of those candidates...choose another!

[qazplm135]

58. And why would one

Not particularly care for either of them?

Qualified, smart, specific policies, unless someone is looking for something less substantive.

[tritsofme]

59. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Neither of those candidates interest me.

[emmaverybo]

61. Yes.

Using serious social justice, political power, and civil rights issues to shame any one about her voting considerations is offensive.

[NurseJackie]

65. That's new to me. I've never heard that "talking point."