2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumVoting for a particular candidate based on gender/sex has happened 44 times in our nations history.
It's high time we stop doing that!
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's high time we stop doing that!
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Now I'm confused but that's nothing unusual.
Why do you suppose there aren't any atheists in the field?
George II
(67,782 posts)....my lifetime. The only time I saw that being a concern was back in 1960 regarding John Kennedy, and he was elected.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...to the reason it's essentially unheard of thoughout all of US history for any politician to openly state they aren't religious, with small handful of extremely rare exceptions nowhere near approaching being representative of actual national demographics.
George II
(67,782 posts)...in Presidential elections.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Check, oh, any poll ever taken on how many people would be willing to vote for an atheist presidential candidate.
It plays a huge role. The fact that everyone just takes it for granted doesn't negate the role it plays.
djean111
(14,255 posts)No, they are not. And gender does not override the differences, in this case.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)or were there other forces at work?
djean111
(14,255 posts)But - and I will assume that the point of your OP is that we should vote vote Hillary BASED ON GENDER - in this case, (and in every damned election), voting should be based on the candidates' issues, NOT on history - the issues I have about Hillary, like war and cluster bombs and the TPP and Wall Street and H-1B visa increases, are vastly more important to me than voting for a woman just because she is a woman. We vote for the candidates that are presented to us, at this point.
Here in Florida, we are presented with DINOs by Wasserman-Schultz, gender does not matter.
This is not what feminism is about. Equal opportunity is not voting for a woman even though I disagree with her policies and past actions, just because she is a woman. The equal opportunity is that a woman is running at all.
And, of course, it is ridiculous to say that the only difference between Hillary and all of the other candidates is gender. As a woman, I am appalled by that.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)history of this nation.
Feminism is about women achieving, believe it or not. I don't care what reason you have for voting for or against her or for someone else.
But let's be honest about this at least. All this, I'm not voting for her because she is a woman, can be interpreted in many ways. And for some it is because they really don't want a woman president.
So, to try and paint someone's support of Hillary only because she is a woman, can be turned right on it's head. As all prior presidential elections have been of one gender/sex, so it did play a role. Albeit, a dirty nasty role.
djean111
(14,255 posts)If all we are presented with is men, we are not voting BASED on gender. We are voting BASED on party and issues. NOT gender.
I am not trying to paint someone's support of Hillary as only because she is a woman.
I am saying that your OP is basically calling on people to vote for Hillary because she is a woman.
That may work on some voters, but I don't think that the gender card plays out well, here at DU.
Gender is not the big difference between candidates. Issues and past performance and believe-ability on future performance are the differences.
Oh, that drum has been beaten here already. Why, I have even seen it said that if we don't want to vote for Hillary, we must have Mommy issues. For fuck's sake. Five-cent psychology at its worst. And, again, not going to work here at DU.
I believe most of Bernie's supporters would have loved to vote for Elizabeth Warren for president, too.
Of course, if you think this primary is between candidates who are pretty much alike except for genitals, and if you think that the person matters more than the issues, then just go ahead and play the gender card. No one is gonna pick it up, IMO. I would not bet on it.
Autumn
(44,765 posts)last 44 Presidential elections. You have to have a choice between a woman or a man in order to have a presidential election where the elections have been based on gender or sex, fantasy women don't count. I'll give you a start. We chose a man over Hillary in 2008. A brilliant move in hindsight. I'm hoping we are as smart this time as we were in 2008.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Autumn
(44,765 posts)Your claim is
It's high time we stop doing that!
here's the link
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251708508
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Autumn
(44,765 posts)over a woman because those 44 men who were elected did not all have a woman running in the race. I think we are done here.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)They were all just to incompetent or something?
Autumn
(44,765 posts)the only woman who actually mounted a full scale run was Hillary. And wisely enough, voters chose Obama over her.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Autumn
(44,765 posts)43 presidential races where voters chose the man over any woman based on gender?
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)The first woman I remember was Shirley Chisholm in 1972.
Loved her!
Thanks for the link...
Autumn
(44,765 posts)Read the OP. Educate yourself and read what I responded to. Here let me help you, this is the claim.
It's high time we stop doing that!
Now I posted that I was aware of 2, CMB and Hillary, but I ignored the republican women who have ran because I don't see them as viable candidates and as a liberal I wouldn't vote for one of them for a dog catcher position. 44 Presidential elections, women have not ran in each of those elections and the men were not chosen as presidents in those 44 elections over those women based on their gender.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)We have an actual progressive choice this time, but most voters have no idea Hillary represents special interest so we likely end up with her unless the economic bubble burst. That will guarantee a Trump/Carson victory.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Warren isn't running. Hillary is a turd way candidate. She's and her turd way friends are a plague on the democratic party. The Wall Street side of the party. A side that needs to be eradicated from the party. They need to join the GOP or start a new party.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Maybe in FDR's day. But, since tv has been around it's who looks the part. Which of these guys would I like to have a beer with? I have never seen a debate on substance over style in the media they just gush over who looks the most appealing to them and the public seems to follow suit.
I have not nor will I ever vote based on looks. If I did that I would be an O'Malley supporter. I will never vote based on gender, if I did that I would have voted for Sarah Palin.
I think this argument of voting for Hillary cuz she is a woman is disgusting.
treestar
(82,383 posts)it was often said. Or for all kinds of reasons we think are wrong. Yet we have no way to stop them. A lot of apolitical women are going to think in terms of it being time for a female President. People who forget all about it the next day.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)This is ridiculous, even for flamebait.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)excluded on that basis but not once have I gone into the poll for President and selected a candidate because of their gender.
You beating yourself up for voting for Stein last time or something?
Autumn
(44,765 posts)44 times in our nations history. Hillary ran in 2008 and I supported her then because I wanted a woman President in my lifetime. Now I look back and I'm grateful that she lost to Obama, we dodged a bullet there. But before that gender/sex had never entered into my consideration. I voted for the Democrat who ran for office but that begs the question as to why the Democratic party doesn't support more women running. The current head of your party has always supported Hillary and has not encouraged a woman other than her to run. Pity. Please share whatever you are smoking.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Autumn
(44,765 posts)a member of the opposite sex is not in the race? If two male candidates oppose each other, their gender plays no role. A few women have run, certainly not 44 times but none have been serious contenders, until Hillary in 2008.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)And there has never been a barrier for women in politics.
OK....
Autumn
(44,765 posts)country and even after that. since you claim it has happened 44 rimes. You should be able to name 44 of them, unless you just pulled the claim that you made in your OP out of... thin air
Autumn
(44,765 posts)It should be easy to prove.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)boston bean
(36,186 posts)Is it because women are inferior candidates?
The above statement was meant to elicit an answer, not that I believe women are inferior.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)My guess though would be that with the exception of a few times, no woman chose to run.
Your OP implies though that 44 times, the American public was presented with a choice of candidates that included BOTH GENDERS and made their selection BASED on gender. That is idiotic on its face.
Keep playing this silly game though; it's actually quite funny to read.
Autumn
(44,765 posts)Got any names? I do remember Carol Moseley Braun talking about running in 2004 but getting backers was an issue. Hillary in 2008 but she lost. That's all I got in the Democratic field cause I don't count the few idiots who have ran in the republican field. But I do see what you are getting at and if I were still a Democrat instead of an Independent it would bother me that the Democratic party has not put up more women since they are so in interested in maintaining that they support equality. Wasserman Schultz should definitely be removed as head of the Democratic party. She is a disgrace.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)states.
Stay on topic, please.
Autumn
(44,765 posts)president based on gender/sex yet?
boston bean
(36,186 posts)That no woman has ever been president of the United States... ??
If that is that case then yes we agree.
Autumn
(44,765 posts)women based on gender/sex/ and who the women were that were actually passed over in the last 44 elections because we chose a male over them. You are correct no woman has been elected president of the United States, the only one who has come close was Hillary but alas no cigar. But if she lost because people preferred Obama as a man over her then that would be 1 out of 44 but I don't know that was why she lost in 2008 so...
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Autumn
(44,765 posts)have a nice day, and by that I mean have a nice day.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)to refresh your memory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates
I'm sure by noting your passion that you have voted for at least 2 or 3 of them.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Women have no chance of being elected if you don't vote for them.
So which women on the list did you vote for? Don't think any were qualified? Personally at the time I thought Roseanne would have made an interesting President.
Based on your post #70 I don't think you knew that many actually have run and I doubt you voted for any of them.
From post #70:
They were all just to incompetent or something?
Do you remember typing that? Not answering the question tells us a lot about your reason for the OP.
A vote is too valuable to waste, the best thing an electorate can do is educate themselves then vote for the best candidates.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)and there has never been a woman nominated for president on that ticket.
Does that answer your question?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)You start a thread bemoaning the fact that people don't vote for women to be President then admit you won't even consider the women that actually have run.
Were none of those women capable enough to be President? None more capable than Bush? Are only Democratic party women smart enough for you? If the Democrats have never nominated a woman as their Presidential nominee why then would you remain loyal to a party that appears to discriminate against women?
Do you also put party before Country? What other "qualifications" must a person meet to be considered by you? Can we assume you have never voted for President because the Democrats haven't put forth a woman candidate?
Based on your OP I could go on asking questions but then I already know how many answers to expect.
The only way the best candidate wins is if you vote for them. It's that simple.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)How was I to vote for someone who was never on a presidential ticket. How was someone to win if they were never on a ballot?
I guess you would like me to bear the totality of this on my shoulders like its my fault. Ignorance of history is what is being shown here in this thread. I find it very interesting.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)is that you refuse to answer any of the questions. And now you deny that women have run for President.
Bear the totality like it's your fault? It's your thread, bear what you want, I didn't expect anything from you and still expect nothing from you.
We're done conversing.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)The fact that only men have been elected president does not prove that people have voted based on gender.
In fact, there have been women running for President from minor parties. You probably didn't vote for them. It sounds like you're suggesting that you and other people didn't vote for them because they are women!
If Fiorina runs against Sanders, are you suggesting people vote for Fiorina?
What about VP coming into it? In 2008, you could have voted for a ticket with Palin as VP. I assume you don't think that would have been a good idea, either.
Luckily, most people are not voting on gender, and never have.
You can shift the argument (as in your post #49) to why it is that no major party has yet had a woman at the top of the ticket. But that's a different conversation, and doesn't change the fact that few people ever walked into a voting booth in some Novemeber and selected their presidential candidate based on gender.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)If one were to accept that the history for women in this country has been one of oppression, it would follow that men being elected were based on their gender.
Not anything at all special about them, except for their sex.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)may well be related to a history of oppression of women. Even so, it does not follow that people have been voting for a particular candidate based on gender. These are two different things, and your conflation of the two is why you are getting so many of the reactions you're getting. It's a reaction to the flawed logic behind the OP.
BTW, also 44 times, we have not voted for a Jew. So maybe that means people should vote for Sanders.
cpompilo
(323 posts)its a soliloquy. Next OP please...
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Apparently, for example, Thomas Jefferson was picked over Aaron Burr because of his gender.
Or something like that.
Or take 1988, since we are more likely to remember it. Clearly Dukakis won the primary against Jackson because of his gender, but then Bush won the Presidency because of his gender.
Obviously I should be supporting Fiorina this time.
If we are gonna have a corporate woman, we might as well have the real thing instead of the lite version. I mean, especially if the general election ends up being Fiorina against Sanders. The ONLY possible reason somebody might vote for Sanders is because of his gender.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)is absolutely insane. Elections should be about the things which matter; issues.
It's truly sad that people will vote for someone based on their gender, religion, insert irrelevant something here which doesn't matter at all when it comes to running the country.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Financial industry vs The Tech industry. America loses either way.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)boston bean
(36,186 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)candidates.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I don't care what gender a candidate is, policy will always trump everything else.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)....is not viewed eqaully to almost the exact same policy presented by her male counterpart.
Gebder issues exist and do play into policy preferences too.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Neither are their donors.
Yes, attacks on gender or decisions based on them are wrong.
But so is lying about public policy differences.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Of course, being the single most qualified presidential candidate in history is the only way a woman could ever beome the front runner in this misogynistic country.
djean111
(14,255 posts)I cannot get past her positions on fracking, war, cluster bombs, H-1B visas, and the TPP. For starters. If you think I would be perfectly okay with those things if she were a man, you are sadly mistaken.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)It is almost the textbook definition of hyperbole.
No one is arguing that she isn't qualified. She is.
Those of us that support Bernie make our arguments based on policy and her donor list.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)this one also believes that Hillary is the most liberal candidate for US President in history and Barack Obama the second-most liberal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=705619
frylock
(34,825 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)LOL, she would not "qualify" with Republicans for disagreeing with them on many issues. If "qualify" means agree with me all the time, no one is qualified.
djean111
(14,255 posts)vote for. How's that? I don't demand purity, but the things I object to go waaay past just "purity".
Yes, she has quite a resume. but I would not hire her, and that is, essentially, what an election is. I feel there is a much better candidate for the position.
Krytan11c
(271 posts)Natural born citizen
At least 35 years old
A resident of the US for 14 years
If you think anything beyond that makes someone more or less qualified, that is simply an opinion.
LexVegas
(6,006 posts)RandySF
(57,661 posts)Ethnic identity means everything in many races.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)How's the Issues forum coming along on hillarycheerleaders.com?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)it's painfully obvious that a woman can announce the very same policy as her male counterpart, and the male will get the credit and be given more defference to that policy idea on a more frequent basis.
Gender bias exists and if that were removed, there would be no question that Hillary is the best qualified to be next POTUS. If the voters can put gender preferances aside, history can be made as an added bonus!!!!
djean111
(14,255 posts)When did that happen? Her policies are not the "very same" as any of her opponents. Some may be the very same, but the ones where they differ are the important ones, IMO.
What is painfully obvious is the gender card is being played very very badly.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That some of the less politically active and aware women are going to tilt towards Hillary for the reason of wanting to see a female President. People on DU can rage about how wrong that is, but when it comes down to it, the average apolitical woman who know zip about Benghazi or the TPP and only shows up on election day every four years - a good number of them are going to like the idea.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)William769
(55,124 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)It's high time we stop doing that!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Don't read much of history. Women has not always had the right to vote in the US and don't think about running for president.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Im voting for Sanders for the issues he supports.
In fact if I now change my vote for Hilary, then I would be voting based on gender.
I will vote for the best canidate regardless of race religion and other factors.