HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » "Im not sure the co...

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:41 PM

 

"Im not sure the country can take two women."

Last edited Mon Jun 27, 2016, 06:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Theyre both good on the campaign trail very good but Im not sure the country can take two women. Im just not sure, said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a leader of the civil rights movement.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-and-warren-electrify-ohio-crowd-sparking-visions-of-a-ticket/2016/06/27/8b169f8e-3a59-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.html?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_clintonwarren-355pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Comment Redacted

Quote where is, as is. No comment or criticism is implied.

Rule redacted due to possibility that citing the rules, violates the rules.

79 replies, 4421 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 79 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Im not sure the country can take two women." (Original post)
Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 OP
democrattotheend Jun 2016 #1
Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #5
democrattotheend Jun 2016 #12
Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #14
Hortensis Jun 2016 #66
TwilightZone Jun 2016 #16
Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #19
TwilightZone Jun 2016 #10
Vattel Jun 2016 #2
Happyhippychick Jun 2016 #3
Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #6
Her Sister Jun 2016 #35
ailsagirl Jun 2016 #75
whathehell Jun 2016 #76
still_one Jun 2016 #4
Orsino Jun 2016 #64
DemFromPittsburgh Jun 2016 #7
JoePhilly Jun 2016 #8
BeyondGeography Jun 2016 #9
Lance Bass esquire Jun 2016 #11
Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #13
TwilightZone Jun 2016 #15
Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #17
TwilightZone Jun 2016 #18
Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #21
MaggieD Jun 2016 #20
okasha Jun 2016 #24
bettyellen Jun 2016 #42
Haveadream Jun 2016 #47
bettyellen Jun 2016 #50
Haveadream Jun 2016 #52
PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #22
SaschaHM Jun 2016 #23
Shrike47 Jun 2016 #25
Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #27
okasha Jun 2016 #32
bettyellen Jun 2016 #44
Goblinmonger Jun 2016 #69
okasha Jun 2016 #29
Hassin Bin Sober Jun 2016 #61
okasha Jun 2016 #73
Goblinmonger Jun 2016 #70
okasha Jun 2016 #74
Donald Ian Rankin Jun 2016 #72
Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #26
Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #28
Iggo Jun 2016 #33
giftedgirl77 Jun 2016 #30
Iggo Jun 2016 #31
Haveadream Jun 2016 #34
Her Sister Jun 2016 #37
Haveadream Jun 2016 #45
Her Sister Jun 2016 #46
Haveadream Jun 2016 #51
greymattermom Jun 2016 #62
Haveadream Jun 2016 #68
pnwmom Jun 2016 #36
Her Sister Jun 2016 #38
DemonGoddess Jun 2016 #40
pnwmom Jun 2016 #41
Blaukraut Jun 2016 #43
nolabels Jun 2016 #49
DemonGoddess Jun 2016 #53
John Poet Jun 2016 #59
tandem5 Jun 2016 #39
grossproffit Jun 2016 #48
DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #54
NanceGreggs Jun 2016 #55
John Poet Jun 2016 #58
NanceGreggs Jun 2016 #60
John Poet Jun 2016 #79
Lyric Jun 2016 #63
Darb Jun 2016 #56
John Poet Jun 2016 #57
Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #67
randome Jun 2016 #65
Donald Ian Rankin Jun 2016 #71
charlespercydemocrat Jun 2016 #77
Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #78

Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:42 PM

1. Why can't we criticize this?

I think we can say that this is disappointing, especially considering the source, without "bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate".

Besides, are we really worried about John Lewis losing his seat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:46 PM

5. Answering your question would violate this rule

 

Rule redacted due to possibility that citing the rules, violates the rules.

So, I must decline to answer.

[overstrike]Please note I am not posting about rules in this post, simply citing them.[/overstrike]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:50 PM

12. You are forgetting a key provision in the rules

"Constructive criticism of Democratic public figures is always welcome on Democratic Underground, and our rules still permit that."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:51 PM

14. "constructive" is a subjective term

 

Thus, I submit the quote without comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 06:07 AM

66. Seems likely that two women on the ticket

is only one of the topics here.* In any case, of course some resist the idea of two women at the top of the ticket. How could it be otherwise. Any change from the status quo will always cause anxiety among some, even when there's nothing wrong with it. That syndrome is inevitable, and when you consider that there is undoubtedly an element of misogyny among some (but not all by any means), well, let's just say plugging in a male just to make them happy is not among my own concerns.



*Another forum used to provide an outlet for people who believed agreeing to the new terms of service was signing a "loyalty oath" and that this one is being purged of freedom lovers who speak truth. That forum's owner has just closed down that outlet for expression of concern, but the concern remains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:53 PM

16. Actually, your OP broke that rule, but not the criticism one.

Ironic, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:57 PM

19. I posted a quote from a reliable source

 

If the quote is in error, then I await a link to the retraction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:49 PM

10. Criticism isn't bashing or trashing.

There's nothing wrong with voicing disagreement. It happens on DU all the time.

There are examples of same right below your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:43 PM

3. I'm not sure he means it the way it is being interpreted.

He may mean that the country wouldn't do well with two women or he could be saying the country may not be evolved enough to elect two women.

I'll believe in the best of intentions and go with the latter sentiment,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Happyhippychick (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:47 PM

6. I offer no criticism or interpretation

 

of the quote. I simply post the quote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Happyhippychick (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 07:56 PM

35. I go with the latter also

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Happyhippychick (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 06:37 PM

75. I agree, Happyhippychick

I always try to give the benefit of the doubt, particularly in this instance, and I think he's saying that the country may not be evolved enough to elect two women. I, personally, have no problem with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Happyhippychick (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 07:16 PM

76. I think he's saying the country is not evolved enough yet..

Don't think it's a comment on their abilities

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:45 PM

4. How come no one considers two men on the same ticket an issue?

Not sure the country can take two men

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 05:45 AM

64. That's easy to answer.

Because masculinity is still the default in American politics. Many voters are still at the stage where, sure, okay, we can elect a woman to something, and isn't she cute, fellas? But to the presidency? And whoa, now you want two women, unsupervised, on the ticket? What if their periods synchronize, or something?

Upper-body strength is not a requirement for the office of the Chief Executive, but try persuading all US voters of that, and doing so in the next four months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:48 PM

7. Its a horrible thing to say

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:48 PM

8. Your effort to "locate the line" is noted.

BTW .... You came no where near the line.

Better luck next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:48 PM

9. He was wrong about Obama's chances too once

I think he's being consistent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:49 PM

11. Too much too fast

 

I have no problem with a Clinton/Warren ticket.

Unfortunately most of the country needs to be spoon fed their change and entry into the new world.

JMHO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lance Bass esquire (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:50 PM

13. I look forward to such a ticket.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:52 PM

15. Criticism isn't bashing or trashing.

This really isn't that difficult. Disagreeing with someone is not "trashing or bashing".

By the way, your questioning of the rules *does* however, break a rule - the one involving interfering with moderation.

Kind of ironic, actually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:54 PM

17. I am not questioning them,

 

merely citing them. I explicitly so state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:55 PM

18. "Don't post messages about site rules"

It's right there in the very first phrase. It doesn't say anything about questioning them.

Perhaps you should spend as much time actually reading and understanding the rules as you do posting about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:57 PM

21. I have no opinion on site rules

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:57 PM

20. Seems like he is simply acknowledging the sexism in this country

 

Kind of hard to ignore the fact that we have never elected a woman president in 240 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 06:09 PM

24. Exactly.

I've agreed with him for most of this campaign. After today's rally I may change my opinion, but I still think taking Warren out of the Senate is less than optimal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:27 PM

42. Interesting how people confuse discussing sexism with being sexist- same thing happened with racial

 

Issues here. if people actually had interest in and a history of discussing sexism or racism they might not get in a dander and try and impinge the reputation of people who do discuss the issues. Same weird shit happened with race here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #42)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:44 PM

47. I agree with this so much

We need to be talking about these things. A lot. Thank you for bringing up a really important distinction so many do not understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Haveadream (Reply #47)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:46 PM

50. African Americans and women here were trashed for raising issues they'd discussed for years....

 

And accused of baiting. I am so glad that is over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #50)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:53 PM

52. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:59 PM

22. I'll file this with the collection of 2008's "America isn't ready for a black President". n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 06:03 PM

23. This is a man who was beaten within an inch of his life marching for Civil Rights...

If there is anyone in tune with the ugly underbelly of American society, it's is John Lewis. He's seen and has been on the receiving end of the backlash against change for decades. I think he can be skeptical of the progress America has made. I want to see a Clinton/Warren ticket, but I'm not blind to how sexist Americans can be when it comes to having just 1 women on the ticket for higher office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 06:49 PM

25. I think Warren would be a good VP choice. It would reduce the odds that Hillary would be impeached.

They wouldn't like the alternative.

You know they will do some damned thing when Hillary is elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrike47 (Reply #25)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 06:53 PM

27. I would like her as VP since IMO

 

1) She would unify the Left wing of the party

2) it would create a "historic" election, like 2008.

3) Every time Trump open his mouth more women would resolve to vote Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 07:23 PM

32. A woman President

would create a "historic" election regardless of VP. More women (and men) already decide to vote for Hillary every time Trump opens his mouth.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:28 PM

44. You know 2 and 3 are just as true without Warren, right? Actually 1 doesn't require Warren either.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #44)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 09:07 AM

69. Having a progressive on the ticket would go a long way to party unity.

 

Me voting for Clinton because I don't want Trump is not the same as unity. If Warren (or another equally progressive Dem) were on the ticket, that would mean a lot and change my approach to how I vote. There is a strong push in the party to move left. That needs to be acknowledged for true unity, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrike47 (Reply #25)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 07:07 PM

29. You do know that you can't impeach a President just because

s/he's from the opposite party, don't you? There has to be a charge of committing a crime while President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #29)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 12:39 AM

61. That's not exactly correct.

The "crime" can be anything the majority an The House says it is. It's not a court of law. It's a political process.

Obviously, to avoid political back-lash, the repigs would have to trump up some bogus "crime."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #61)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 06:16 PM

73. The impeachment language in the Constitution

is for "high crimes and misdemeanors," which is a pretty loose standard. They went for "perjury" with Bill Clinton, and the Senate declined to convict him. (Now, we all know that the real but silent charge was 1st. Degree Horndoggery. That didn't work out too well because three of their own Horndogs were outed in the process. So they'd have to charge Hillary with some exotic crime no Republican had ever committed, and there ain't no such.) After the Benghazi debacle and the election of a likelier-every-day Dem Senate majority, I think they'd tread a bit more warily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #29)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 09:07 AM

70. If you don't think that House Republicans have impeachment charges drafted already

 

you are kidding yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #70)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 06:21 PM

74. I'm sure they do, right next to their porn folders.

If they take the beating it seems they will in November, the filing of any such charges will be moot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrike47 (Reply #25)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 09:34 AM

72. I'd love to see a Democratic president impeached, the more obviously spurious the charges the better

I can think of nothing more likely to win back Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 06:51 PM

26. The country has taken two men without blinking an eye for our entire history.

It can take two women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 06:54 PM

28. I concur

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 07:24 PM

33. Ayup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 07:20 PM

30. Take is the wrong word.

 

accept would be more appropriate. This country is just as leary about a woman being in the POTUS position as they are about a minority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 07:22 PM

31. Puts me in mind of RBG's "When there's nine" quote.

I don't seem to remember ever having a problem with it when there were two men, which was....er...um...every time.

I can't see why I'd have a problem with two women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 07:50 PM

34. John Lewis is making a socio-political observation about sexism and electability

and unfortunately, it is one Hillary and Warren have surely discussed. It has been mentioned frequently on this board. Any one of us likely knows people who would not vote for a ticket purely based on the gender, color, religion, orientation or ethnicity of the candidates. Rep. Lewis is the last person who would be one of them but he is pointing out a real concern about the prejudices of the electorate; the same electorate that has been voting for Donald Trump. Lewis isn't sure and truly none of us can be in such unchartered waters. Very depressing that we still need to make electability risk/benefit analyses based on race, gender, religion, etc rather than qualifications but it is a reality to take into consideration. I know we all look forward to a future when it is no longer even an issue and are proud of Hillary, Elizabeth and the Democratic Party for breaking barriers!

In regard to that, Rep Lewis's concern is easy to understand. Here is a very brief sampling of some of the first mainstream comments following a positive report about Hillary and Elizabeth's speeches in Ohio today. The salient question regarding the ticket's electability is just how prevalent these sentiments are with the electorate at large. Most of the comments were negative and few had anything to do with policy and everything to do with aversion based on identity and sexism. Idiots!

Unfortunately, these people are allowed to vote:



*Two old white women.

*WOMEN'S WORLD: CLINTON TEST DRIVES WARREN. I thought it might be their secret porn video.

*Did anyone else just go LIMP looking at those faces?

*I would imagine Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and all our past great leaders are turning over in their graves looking at Hillbilly and Warren standing up there in their matching blue pants suits.

*Can we get two old establishment ruler hags for the price of one?

*id rather be waterboarded than see either of them nude lol

*OMG.
The blond. Bimbo. Estrogen. Socialist. Fem-I-Nazi, Blue Pant-Suit Ticket.
These two broads are going to scare the sh*t of of Putin & ISIS?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.....
We're F-k'd.

*Hill wont choose warren bc warren has a bigger @!$%# than hillary

*No secret-service agent will be unscreeched at!

*What an image...The two of them as strippers.

*Two hot-headed women......that would work well in the world of diplomacy..NOT....give me two even-tempered women with proven....proven diplomatic skills and ability to manage more than the WH kitchen staff....

*I'll take Donald over the 2 raging bimbos any day.











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Haveadream (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:03 PM

37. Those comments are sad and such a downer on such a great day!

 

Wow! People making these comments and having these awful opinions. I think it sucks to be them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Her Sister (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:33 PM

45. I think you are right!

It really does suck to be them. Today was glorious and our two (possible) candidates were outstanding! It baffles me how anyone could not love them and their ideas. I watched the speeches several times because they were just that exciting and good.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Haveadream (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:39 PM

46. Very very awesome day! And now am going into the nightzzzzzzzz.....

 

.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Her Sister (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:50 PM

51. An awesome day indeed, Her Sister

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Haveadream (Reply #34)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 05:26 AM

62. So the folks who write this stuff

would be able to look at the Donald nude? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymattermom (Reply #62)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 08:40 AM

68. Bwahahaha



Now I have to unsee that!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 07:59 PM

36. When was a man ever hampered by a running mate of the same gender?

Why should a woman be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:05 PM

38. Untested and exciting waters!

 

Will be great when they won't be but as it is now that's where we are!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:07 PM

40. It's not that both women are not qualified

that's not it at all. I think what Rep. Lewis was speaking to, was acceptance of two women on the national ticket. There's still enough misogyny in the general populace, that I can see where that would be an issue.

WE on this board like it. But we're only a very small number in the larger scheme of things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemonGoddess (Reply #40)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:21 PM

41. I used to be afraid of that but lately my thinking is

that the only people who would be put off by two exceptionally qualified women are the same ones who already can't stand Hillary.

Good riddance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #41)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:27 PM

43. This ^^^

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #41)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:46 PM

49. Exactly!

And I am not crossing my fingers, because i don't want to jinx anything

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #41)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:57 PM

53. I hope you're right in that assessment

I'd love to see a two woman ticket, but, I have reservations as to whether or not the greater general populace will be accepting of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #36)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 12:08 AM

59. AL GORE, by Joe Lieberman !!!

 

Al was hampered by a running mate of the same gender!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:06 PM

39. All the vitriol Clinton has endured it remains to be seen if this country is ready for one woman.

So from that standpoint it's a fair assessment and I'm not going to feel indignant over reality. But I think if he's thinking strategically it's a fairly obvious point, but not necessarily the right one. Putting aside that Warren is a household name and a major voice of the Democratic party and thus a very obvious choice for VP, if adding her name to the ticket helps to force veiled sexism to become overt sexism then there is real utility there. Sexism in our society is not subtle but it is so ingrained that we perceive it as background noise. So if a Clinton/Warren ticket forces the issue so be it. If it forces rifts in households across the country because the question "why not?" is answered with a long pause so be it. Honest introspection and a clearer understanding of where others truly stand may have a profound impact on the electorate and not in a way predicted by conventional wisdom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:45 PM

48. This makes me angry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:20 PM

54. I'm worried about 2 women on the ticket because of sexism

But I'm also excited about the prospect. The people who wont vote for 2 women will probably not vote for 1 woman president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:44 PM

55. I think he's expressing a legitimate concern ...

... as to whether two women at the top of the ticket will be "acceptable" to all voters.

We know that some voters think that as the first female POTUS, Hillary should have a "good man" behind her for counsel and guidance. Simply pretending that some voters don't feel that way won't make that mindset disappear.

In the end, IMHO, the number of voters who won't vote for a Clinton/Warren ticket on that basis are not legion enough to have any great impact on the GE. In fact, those who object to two females might be outnumbered by those - especially younger women voters - who see it as a plus towards a more progressive, forward-looking administration - and a two-women ticket might well attract more voters than it repels.

We live in a quickly-changing, ever-evolving world. There was a time when two northerners or two southerners on the same ticket would have seemed political suicide. Now we're discussing whether running two females is equally dangerous.

And someday soon, there might well be a similar discussion about whether an openly gay man running for POTUS will be hurt politically by choosing a gay or lesbian running-mate.

I believe the electorate are far more willing to adapt to change - and actually support it - than some give them credit for. I'm old enough to remember when electing a black man was considered impossible - and yet here we are, living in a world where the "impossible" happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #55)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 12:04 AM

58. We agree on something (finally) !

 

"In fact, those who object to two females might be outnumbered by those - especially younger women voters - who see it as a plus towards a more progressive, forward-looking administration - and a two-women ticket might well attract more voters than it repels."



After seeing and hearing Elizabeth and Hillary together today, I think
TWO WOMEN Are Better Than One !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John Poet (Reply #58)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 12:25 AM

60. If YOU actually agree with me on something ...

... I am going to have to rethink my position.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #60)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 01:40 PM

79. HA!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #55)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 05:28 AM

63. I think the voters who object to two females

are also the voters who object to ONE. They weren't going to vote for Clinton anyway. Screw 'em, I say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 10:56 PM

56. Get sure, Mr. Lewis.

 

Get sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:54 PM

57. TWO Women Are Better Than One!

 

I think making this ticket "DOUBLE Historic" would actually improve Democratic turnout, especially among female millennials and former Bernie supporters. It would be a way to build excitement in the base that has been somewhat lacking.

I very much doubt that anyone who would hesitate to vote for this ticket,
because there were two women on it rather than just one,
would have been voting for any Hillary ticket anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John Poet (Reply #57)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 08:03 AM

67. Certainly how I feel

 

I think now is the moment for this ticket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 05:55 AM

65. So John Lewis is no better nor worse than Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.

 

All politicians say stuff that doesn't always make sense. Big deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 09:32 AM

71. I'd be fine with two women, provided neither is a Senator with a Republican governor.

In herself, Warren would make a perfectly good VP, but unless she's certaint she'd be massively better than the next best choice (and I don't think she is), Clinton shouldn't pick her.

Ditto to Brown and Booker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 08:09 PM

77. Russ Feingold

 

could Russ Feingold be Hilary's v.p.,?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to charlespercydemocrat (Reply #77)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 09:36 PM

78. We want Russ back in his senate seat

 

He is about to evict a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread