New Republic: The Democrats Must Nominate Another Woman for President

[NOVA Green]

Mod(s)

Why can't this thread be combined with Virginia's thread, since it is essentially the same subject, regardless of the different news publication?

Arguably this lack of consolidation is part of the reason why the 2020 thread is virtually unreadable...

Report the OP to the moderator.  That has a better chance of getting results than posting your complaint here.

Also, it should probably also be reported for copyright infringement, since the quote in the OP is way too long.

Hey there why are you saying he should report me? There’s a limit to how many characters you can post (it basically stops you from posting more than a certain number of characters ), so I don’t think I did something wrong.
You can put the two threads together if it really bothers you but tbh I see multiple threads on the same issue constantly, so I wasn’t aware that was an issue...

Sorry, Possiblymaybe my intention had nothing to do with the content of what you were posting, nor any of your posting history in any way shape nor form.

My comment was specific to Atlas and how we have multiple threads on the same topic on various boards for all sorts of items, instead of having greater consolidation of threads that are inherently related into one "Megathread" so to speak.

Quite honestly, I should have taken my request to consolidate threads using the report function (Not because of content nor anything you have done) rather than posting directly into the thread itself.

Consider us both chastised...

Back to the topic at hand, I consider the basic gist of both the New Republic and Politico article to be extremely similar, when it comes to how the 2016/2017/2018 revelations and allegations regarding sexual assault and harassment at the hands of powerful Men (Including incumbent President Donald Trump) has impacted voting decisions and swings, and will continue to do so until 2018 elections, and likely into 2020, and beyond...

Although I will not repost my original response from Virginia's thread regarding the New Republic article, my basic take is this:

1.) There is absolutely no question that Female voters from Democratic Base voters, to Independent voters, and even Republican Women from larger Metro areas throughout the Country, have been at the core of massive swings that we have seen, even in traditionally safe Republican districts in the off-year and special elections.

2.) Regardless of the outcome in Alabama (Which if Jones wins will likely be heavily as a Result of major swings among White Female Voters), which will create tidal waves even in "Safe 'Pub" parts of the Deep South and beyond, we can certainly expect to see massive gains in 2018 among Women running for State House and Senate races throughout the Country (Which will disproportionately benefit Democrats).

3.) We can likely expect to see significant Democratic gains in US House races in 2018 in HRC '16 CDs, since many of these places match the profile of Suburban/Exurban communities where Democrats have performed exceptionally well as a direct result of massive swings among Indy and 'Pub leaning Female Voters.

4.) We can likely expect that Trump's recent endorsement of Moore, will likely keep key Dem Senate races in places like MO and ND Democratic, since Trump who has his own baggage with sexual harassment of women is now endorsing a Man who has multiple credible accusers and sources, many of whom are Republicans from Alabama, corroborating the stories of the victims.

Expect this to be front and center in many US-Senate election races in Democratic seats in 2018, at a time where Trump's support is collapsing, even among many of his own base voters.

5.) Although the 2020 Presidential Election is a long time away, we will likely see at least 3-4 Women running for the Democratic Party nomination, that have their own electoral strengths and weaknesses within both the Democratic Party base, as well as National and Regional electorally.

We will likely see at least one if not two Republican Women challenge Trump in the 2020 'Pub Primaries (Assuming he has not been impeached nor indicted and decides to run for a 2nd Term)....

6.) I am withholding opinions about the various Democratic Party and Republican Party potential Presidential nominees at this point, but my gut opinion is that we will see a record number of Women elected to State House and Senate Seats (Where so far we have seen at so many different States in the US, powerful Democratic and Republican Men falling alike from power), a significant increase in the number of Women elected to the US House, and additionally within the Democratic Primary base voters potentially a consolidation of support around a Progressive Female Democratic candidate, without some of the issues that HRC had with many on the base (Men and Women alike)....

7.) I truly believe that what he have witnessed over the past few years, that just recently hit critical mass over the past few months, is just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to a fundamental political realignment, where the days of the "old boys club" culture in almost every State Capitol in America, the US House and US Senate even, where there was a culture of impunity regarding sexual conduct and harassment, is shortly to come to an end....

I suspect we haven't seen nothing yet when it comes to allegations regarding members of the US-House and US-Senate....

Maybe by 2020 or 2024 the United States will finally start to approach the Gender Parity numbers when it comes to elected representatives closer to most European Democracies....

[UncleSam]

I am so sick of expectations being hyped up. Middle America is misogynist, full stop. It will not elect a woman.

Trump didn't even win 50 percent of the vote in MI/WI/PA/FL and this was with Hillary Clinton being a polarizing candidate with 30 years of political baggage, the AA vote being depressed, Comey dropping the letter 11 days before the election, and quite frankly a large portion of the electorate thinking Hillary had it in the bag and staying home. The 2020 nominee does not even NEED Middle (White) America to win the election anyway. Get black people in Wayne County to vote and aid a massive voter registration for displaced Puerto Ricans in Florida (while also ginning up AA and millenial turnout), and the Democrat wins.

Not sure where you got that AA didn't show up for Hillary, it showed up and then some. Wayne turnout was down but the population of Detroit is down too (and will be even lower in 2020). These aren't the places to look for Democratic gains (at least not primarily).

The Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo areas, on the other hand, are rapidly growing and shifted towards Hillary a fair bit. Even if Trump dominates the Northern part of the state and the Traverse City / Midland areas like he did in 2016, there are some serious potential gains for Democrats in the western part of the state to offset the declining population in Wayne and largely maxed out AA vote that can't grow much due to the University of Michigan student population growth being slower than overall population growth. That being said, I do think MI will be gone for Dems in ten years or so regardless, even if they SHOULD still be able to win it in 2018 and 2020 (kind of like a reverse Georgia that jumped the gun).

[Mr. Morden]

We will likely see at least one if not two Republican Women challenge Trump in the 2020 'Pub Primaries (Assuming he has not been impeached nor indicted and decides to run for a 2nd Term)....

That seems like a reach.  Assuming that Trump is still in the race by the end of 2019, my guess for the number of primary challengers he has who will be women is zero.  I do think he'll probably have a primary challenger, but it's far more likely to be a man than a woman.

[Jeppe]

I would reject a male candidate entirely, nominate a woman in 2020, a woman in 2024, a woman in 2028, and beyond!

Besides that, the article does bring up a good point about the Democratic electorate, that it is significantly more female than male. I think that male Democrats will eventually be like female Republicans, in the clear minority in their own party, sooner or later. It seems like male politicians just can't be trusted to not be sexual predators.

[TheLeftwardTide]

I would reject a male candidate entirely, nominate a woman in 2020, a woman in 2024, a woman in 2028, and beyond!

Besides that, the article does bring up a good point about the Democratic electorate, that it is significantly more female than male. I think that male Democrats will eventually be like female Republicans, in the clear minority in their own party, sooner or later. It seems like male politicians just can't be trusted to not be sexual predators.

I think this is really quite sexist. A good litmus test replacing the word "male" with "female", and seeing how the subsequent comment sounds.

You should vote for a candidate not based on gender, race, or sexual orientation, but rather strictly based on qualifications; in the true egalitarian (and left-wing) spirit.

[Mr. Morden]

You should vote for a candidate not based on gender, race, or sexual orientation, but rather strictly based on qualifications; in the true egalitarian (and left-wing) spirit.

What about voting in the primary on the basis of electability?  And in that sense, is it wrong to consider how general election voters will react to a candidate's race and sex in assessing electability?  E.g., what if you're a partisan Democrat who thinks that women are at a disadvantage in the general election?  Is it wrong to then not vote for a woman in the primary, on the basis that you think the fact that she's a woman means she's less electable than a male candidate?

[Jeppe]

I would reject a male candidate entirely, nominate a woman in 2020, a woman in 2024, a woman in 2028, and beyond!

Besides that, the article does bring up a good point about the Democratic electorate, that it is significantly more female than male. I think that male Democrats will eventually be like female Republicans, in the clear minority in their own party, sooner or later. It seems like male politicians just can't be trusted to not be sexual predators.

I think this is really quite sexist. A good litmus test replacing the word "male" with "female", and seeing how the subsequent comment sounds.

You should vote for a candidate not based on gender, race, or sexual orientation, but rather strictly based on qualifications; in the true egalitarian (and left-wing) spirit.

Except men are not underrepresented in politics. When we achieve gender parity, then maybe I'll consider supporting male candidates, but until we're not losing to Poland or Bulgaria in terms of female representation, I will keep supporting the marginalized candidates. Politics is an old boy's club, and until we elect more women & POC, it'll remain that way.

[libertpaulian]

I would reject a male candidate entirely, nominate a woman in 2020, a woman in 2024, a woman in 2028, and beyond!

Besides that, the article does bring up a good point about the Democratic electorate, that it is significantly more female than male. I think that male Democrats will eventually be like female Republicans, in the clear minority in their own party, sooner or later. It seems like male politicians just can't be trusted to not be sexual predators.

I think this is really quite sexist. A good litmus test replacing the word "male" with "female", and seeing how the subsequent comment sounds.

You should vote for a candidate not based on gender, race, or sexual orientation, but rather strictly based on qualifications; in the true egalitarian (and left-wing) spirit.

Except men are not underrepresented in politics. When we achieve gender parity, then maybe I'll consider supporting male candidates, but until we're not losing to Poland or Bulgaria in terms of female representation, I will keep supporting the marginalized candidates. Politics is an old boy's club, and until we elect more women & POC, it'll remain that way.

What if the primary turned out to be male POC vs. female POC?

(Example: Julian Castro vs. Kamala Harris)

[TheLeftwardTide]

You should vote for a candidate not based on gender, race, or sexual orientation, but rather strictly based on qualifications; in the true egalitarian (and left-wing) spirit.

What about voting in the primary on the basis of electability?  And in that sense, is it wrong to consider how general election voters will react to a candidate's race and sex in assessing electability?  E.g., what if you're a partisan Democrat who thinks that women are at a disadvantage in the general election?  Is it wrong to then not vote for a woman in the primary, on the basis that you think the fact that she's a woman means she's less electable than a male candidate?

I just think it's wrong to vote for a candidate based off of certain physical attributes that they cannot control. That's really it.

I would reject a male candidate entirely, nominate a woman in 2020, a woman in 2024, a woman in 2028, and beyond!

Besides that, the article does bring up a good point about the Democratic electorate, that it is significantly more female than male. I think that male Democrats will eventually be like female Republicans, in the clear minority in their own party, sooner or later. It seems like male politicians just can't be trusted to not be sexual predators.

I think this is really quite sexist. A good litmus test replacing the word "male" with "female", and seeing how the subsequent comment sounds.

You should vote for a candidate not based on gender, race, or sexual orientation, but rather strictly based on qualifications; in the true egalitarian (and left-wing) spirit.

Except men are not underrepresented in politics. When we achieve gender parity, then maybe I'll consider supporting male candidates, but until we're not losing to Poland or Bulgaria in terms of female representation, I will keep supporting the marginalized candidates. Politics is an old boy's club, and until we elect more women & POC, it'll remain that way.

It doesn't matter how you spin it - it doesn't change the fact that you're voting for, or against, someone strictly because of their gender. I mean, it is possible to vote for female candidates strictly based on their qualifications - their platform, past record, personality, etc. - and still make leaps and bounds with gender equality. Case in point: your state's House of Felegates elections in 2017.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

It doesn't matter how you spin it - it doesn't change the fact that you're voting for, or against, someone strictly because of their gender. I mean, it is possible to vote for female candidates strictly based on their qualifications - their platform, past record, personality, etc. - and still make leaps and bounds with gender equality. Case in point: your state's House of Felegates elections in 2017.

The percentage of the electorate that wouldn't vote for a woman is negligible. Overall, men are more likely to go into politics and run for office. Women are under represented because of the aggregate of individual decisions, not sexism. No doubt, with younger generations, the percentage of politicians who are female is higher. As older incumbents (who are mostly male) retire, more women will take their places. Wave elections also help in sweeping out incumbents. While republicans have less women than democrats, they still sent women to the senate to fill seats left open by the retirement of longtime democrat senators Harkin (IA) and Rockefeller (WV). I think the male majority in politics is likely to remain, but become much less pronounced. I couldn't care less about the gender of a politician so long as they vote the right way.

Side note: Atheists/agnostics are perhaps the most under-represented group in Congress. I still don't believe I could win in a republican primary because of my lack of religion. While this is a tad annoying, I'm certainly not going to vote for someone just because they don't believe.

[Jeppe]

You should vote for a candidate not based on gender, race, or sexual orientation, but rather strictly based on qualifications; in the true egalitarian (and left-wing) spirit.

What about voting in the primary on the basis of electability?  And in that sense, is it wrong to consider how general election voters will react to a candidate's race and sex in assessing electability?  E.g., what if you're a partisan Democrat who thinks that women are at a disadvantage in the general election?  Is it wrong to then not vote for a woman in the primary, on the basis that you think the fact that she's a woman means she's less electable than a male candidate?

I just think it's wrong to vote for a candidate based off of certain physical attributes that they cannot control. That's really it.

I would reject a male candidate entirely, nominate a woman in 2020, a woman in 2024, a woman in 2028, and beyond!

Besides that, the article does bring up a good point about the Democratic electorate, that it is significantly more female than male. I think that male Democrats will eventually be like female Republicans, in the clear minority in their own party, sooner or later. It seems like male politicians just can't be trusted to not be sexual predators.

I think this is really quite sexist. A good litmus test replacing the word "male" with "female", and seeing how the subsequent comment sounds.

You should vote for a candidate not based on gender, race, or sexual orientation, but rather strictly based on qualifications; in the true egalitarian (and left-wing) spirit.

Except men are not underrepresented in politics. When we achieve gender parity, then maybe I'll consider supporting male candidates, but until we're not losing to Poland or Bulgaria in terms of female representation, I will keep supporting the marginalized candidates. Politics is an old boy's club, and until we elect more women & POC, it'll remain that way.

It doesn't matter how you spin it - it doesn't change the fact that you're voting for, or against, someone strictly because of their gender. I mean, it is possible to vote for female candidates strictly based on their qualifications - their platform, past record, personality, etc. - and still make leaps and bounds with gender equality. Case in point: your state's House of Felegates elections in 2017.

The reason there were so many women elected to the Hous of Deegates this year was because a bunch of women’s advocacy groups recruited and helped fundraise for female candidates. A lot of them won tough primaries through the backing of these groups. Being a good politician is pretty subjective, a good politician for somebody might be somebody who is really good at constituent services, for somebody else it might mean being a strong advocate in Congress for domestic violence victims, etc. For a lot of people, a good politician is somebody who represents them well, and has firsthand experience in issues that matter to them, such as sexual harassment or experiencing gender-based discrimination in the workplace.

The whole “best politician for the job” argument is pretty weak, because it is such a subjective term. But I do understand where you’re coming from, a popular mayor of a large city is much more qualified to be a representative than a recent college graduate with no work experience, and etc. But honestly, a lot of the people coming into politics have pretty similar backgrounds, where it is mostly just personal preference as to who you think is most qualified. In cases like that, I think women candidates are better because they have different life experiences than most of Congress.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Not sure where you got that AA didn't show up for Hillary, it showed up and then some. Wayne turnout was down but the population of Detroit is down too (and will be even lower in 2020). These aren't the places to look for Democratic gains (at least not primarily).

Maybe I was wrong about Detroit in particular but AA turnout was down 7 points nationally from 2012 and down a staggering 20 points from 2012 in Milwaukee’s black precincts. I applied what I read about Milwaukee to Detroit due to Hillary’s significantly lower vote total compared to Obama 2012 and the heavy increase of third party votes that was more than the margin Trump won by. so if wrong on Wayne turnout I stand corrected.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/many-in-milwaukee-neighborhood-didnt-vote-and-dont-regret-it.html

[Beet]

The MSM narrative on AA is absurd. They are by far the single most Democratic demographic in the country, and yet if they don't turn out at the same rates as they did for the first black president and vote for one party at the same margins, they somehow "didn't show up." It just reeks of entitlement. Given the shoddy shape that some of the neighborhoods I canvassed in were in - "You guys show up once every four years, and nothing changes," it's amazing any of them even voted.

[junior chįmp]

The MSM narrative on AA is absurd. They are by far the single most Democratic demographic in the country, and yet if they don't turn out at the same rates as they did for the first black president and vote for one party at the same margins, they somehow "didn't show up." It just reeks of entitlement. Given the shoddy shape that some of the neighborhoods I canvassed in were in - "You guys show up once every four years, and nothing changes," it's amazing any of them even voted.

These are my thoughts exactly. Democrats don't feel like they have to do anything. When I was in a union, they always sent some asshat once a year and try to scare us into voting because "those dastardly Republicans in Albany will make NY a RTW state." Yeah, fat chance that'll ever happen

[IceSpear]

The MSM narrative on AA is absurd. They are by far the single most Democratic demographic in the country, and yet if they don't turn out at the same rates as they did for the first black president and vote for one party at the same margins, they somehow "didn't show up." It just reeks of entitlement. Given the shoddy shape that some of the neighborhoods I canvassed in were in - "You guys show up once every four years, and nothing changes," it's amazing any of them even voted.

These are my thoughts exactly. Democrats don't feel like they have to do anything. When I was in a union, they always sent some asshat once a year and try to scare us into voting because "those dastardly Republicans in Albany Indianapolis/Lansing/Madison will make NY IN/MI/WI a RTW state." Yeah, fat chance that'll ever happen

Yeah, I'm sure the people in those states thought the same thing.

[Former Kentuckian]

You do realize that shrieking "MUH MISOGYNY" isn't a convincing strategy, right?  President Obama took the high road in 2008 by rarely invoking race and racism into the mix.  Maybe a woman nominee (whoever she may be) should take a similar, wise road.

Hillary hardly mentioned sexism in the 2008 primaries and lost. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Her harshest critics proved to be a bunch of sexual predators. But sure, misogyny played no part in the fact that her coverage was extremely negative.

I don't remember Bill being that harsh about her campaign

[Rookie Yinzer]

The MSM narrative on AA is absurd. They are by far the single most Democratic demographic in the country, and yet if they don't turn out at the same rates as they did for the first black president and vote for one party at the same margins, they somehow "didn't show up." It just reeks of entitlement. Given the shoddy shape that some of the neighborhoods I canvassed in were in - "You guys show up once every four years, and nothing changes," it's amazing any of them even voted.

I agree with this. Hillary should have been in Detroit and Milwaukee explaining her plans for black America instead of trying to court White Republicans who were going to vote for Trump regardless.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You do realize that shrieking "MUH MISOGYNY" isn't a convincing strategy, right?  President Obama took the high road in 2008 by rarely invoking race and racism into the mix.  Maybe a woman nominee (whoever she may be) should take a similar, wise road.

Hillary hardly mentioned sexism in the 2008 primaries and lost. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Her harshest critics proved to be a bunch of sexual predators. But sure, misogyny played no part in the fact that her coverage was extremely negative.

I don't remember Bill being that harsh about her campaign

You're so cute.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

You do realize that shrieking "MUH MISOGYNY" isn't a convincing strategy, right?  President Obama took the high road in 2008 by rarely invoking race and racism into the mix.  Maybe a woman nominee (whoever she may be) should take a similar, wise road.

Hillary hardly mentioned sexism in the 2008 primaries and lost. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Her harshest critics proved to be a bunch of sexual predators. But sure, misogyny played no part in the fact that her coverage was extremely negative.

I don't remember Bill being that harsh about her campaign

You're so cute.

Is he not a sexual predator?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Is he not a sexual predator?

I guess if I answer yes that makes ok what people like Halperin, Thrush and Ailes did all these years.
Amirite?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Matt Lauer now.
How odd that all these journalists treated a fellow sexual predator with kid gloves during the campaign.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Is he not a sexual predator?

I guess if I answer yes that makes ok what people like Halperin, Thrush and Ailes did all these years.
Amirite?

I'm not sure it's wise to conflate opposition to a political candidate with being a sexual harasser.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Is he not a sexual predator?

I guess if I answer yes that makes ok what people like Halperin, Thrush and Ailes did all these years.
Amirite?

I'm not sure it's wise to conflate opposition to a political candidate with being a sexual harasser.

Real life disagrees with you.

[IceSpear]

Matt Lauer now.
How odd that all these journalists treated a fellow sexual predator with kid gloves during the campaign.

Yeah, Lauer's Trump brodown vs. Hillary's witch trial suddenly makes a lot more sense.

[Maverick J-Mac]

Either a woman or a gay man.  If there's one thing certain about Democrats it's that they're close minded towards and not welcoming straight white men.  This is why I didn't vote for Hillary.  I was close to voting for her but got a feeling she and her party are prejudice against my gender and race.