New Republic: The Democrats Must Nominate Another Woman for President

[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.

[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.

[TheLeftwardTide]

Only a true proletariat should be selected for the furtherance of the revolution. None listed here have the necessary qualifications to become a true leader of the Revolutionary Vanguard which will overturn the global capitalist imperialist order. The rise of the proletariat is nigh!

>checks post count
>checks avatar

o boi dis gon b gud