New Republic: The Democrats Must Nominate Another Woman for President

[Jeppe]

Yes.

[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.

[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.

[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.