Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 13, 2024, 07:04:18 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?  (Read 2054 times)
Niemeyerite
JulioMadrid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,807
Spain


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -9.04

« on: January 03, 2012, 10:17:32 AM »

You remind me very much of a blonde I know in real life.

I would also like to note than blonde stereotypes are totally correct maybe 4/5 of the time, in my experience. Including this occasion.

Ouch. Sad (Speaking as a blonde who is most certainly NOT a bimbo! Tongue)

But no, at the end of the day, only nominate who you think has the best chance, regardless of gender, or anything else you can think of. It's cliche to say it, but still the best way to go.

BTW: It's been awhile, guys! Haven't posted in ages. Smiley

Hey, finally a girl posting here!!

I think democrats should nominate more women in every state, not only "true red states". However, people have to decide whom they prefer (or who is more electable).
And dems can win in GOP states (Kathleen Sebelius, Brad Henry, Ben Nelson, even Jim Matherson in Utah..). So there's always an opportunity to win in true red states...
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 12 queries.