HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Garrett78 » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AM
Number of posts: 10,721

Journal Archives

Nominating a woman or person of color vs. nominating "the best person."

"The global scholarship leaves no doubt: Women in political office make it a priority to advance rights, equality and opportunity for women and girls, in a way and to a degree that men in power overwhelmingly do not."

There are similar findings when it comes to electing persons of color.

And success encourages more women and persons of color to pursue public office in a society that discourages women and persons of color from pursuing public office. Electing women and persons of color represent cracks in the facade. Our electorate is increasingly diverse, and the incoming class of Democratic Congresspersons reflects that reality. Those who will take office, and even those who fell short (like Abrams and Gillum) are an inspiration to those who are historically the most oppressed.

The US is built on a foundation of white supremacy and patriarchy. Absent racism and sexism, the Republican Party of today would cease to be viable as a national institution. Progress is always met by a backlash. Slowly but surely, however, the foundation is weakened. Until, one day, it collapses.

Let's not fall victim to color-blind racism, the rhetoric used to oppose affirmative action and the penchant for denying the reality that electing women matters--or that the US "isn't ready for a woman president."

I do not wish to make this about any one candidate (this thread is about much more than a single individual), but I support Kamala Harris for president for numerous reasons, including those mentioned above. And, from a purely electoral standpoint, she puts North Carolina, Florida and Georgia in play. I hope (and am hopeful) that our electorate will come to realize that Harris is "the best person" in this moment, in this period in our history.

Abrams and Gillum

I just feel like reminding everyone that Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum are extremely impressive and should have a future in national politics. Both were victimized by intense voter suppression and blatant racism, including robocalls. Yet both came damn close to overcoming those obstacles in states that are typically quite red in midterm elections.

I hope that both Abrams and Gillum, if they don't run for statewide office again, consider running for the US House or US Senate or get offered cabinet posts in the next Democratic administration. Or maybe even get considered for VP.

Iowa and New Hampshire

I'm glad that there seems to be a move away from caucuses. But I think other changes are called for, such as not having Iowa and New Hampshire kick things off. Those states don't reflect our electorate.

The point has been made that both parties need to follow more or less the same schedule, so that neither party is alienating certain states by having or not having those states be early voting states. I'm not convinced that should be a huge concern. But both parties can follow more or less the same rotating schedule without having IA and NH always leading the way. Some traditions need to die.

The Age of Presidential Candidates

The age of the last 5 Democratic presidents, upon taking office, were 47, 46, 52, 55 and 43.

Only 3 of the 45 presidents (Harrison, Reagan and Trump) have been over 65 when taking office. One died shortly after taking office. Another developed alzheimer's in office. And Trump, who holds the record at 70 years and 220 days, is nuttier than squirrel shit.

Sanders would be 79. Biden would be 78. Kerry would be 76. Warren would be approaching 72. Holder would be 70. Inslee would be just shy of 70. Hickenlooper would be approaching 70. Brown would be 68.

The vast majority of presidents have been 60 or younger when taking office.

Harris would be 56. Garcetti would be on the verge of turning 50. Klobuchar would be 60. Booker would be 51. O'Rourke would be 48. Gillibrand would be 53. Kennedy, like Swalwell, would be 40. Buttigieg would be 39. Murphy would be 47. Landrieu would be 60. Schiff would be 60. O'Malley would be 58. Bullock would be 54. Delaney would be 57. Julián Castro would be 46.

The in-betweens: Kaine (nearly 63), Merkley (64), Patrick (64), McAuliffe (nearly 64), Tester (64), Cooper (63)

It's a fact of life that with age comes mental and physical deterioration. There's no fountain of youth, even if some remain remarkably healthy well into their 70s and beyond. This is less of a concern with members of Congress than it is with the presidency.

And history suggests there's a preference for young-ish presidents.

Plus, our electorate is very diverse. And we are in the Me Too and Black Lives Matter era. Movements that are long overdue and must continue. This shouldn't be ignored when nominating our next president.
Go to Page: 1