Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
106 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Voting for a particular candidate based on gender/sex has happened 44 times in our nations history. (Original Post) boston bean Oct 2015 OP
Voting for a particular candidate based on religion has happened 44 times in our nations history. Fumesucker Oct 2015 #1
Who is the atheist running? nt boston bean Oct 2015 #2
We shouldn't stop voting based on religion? Fumesucker Oct 2015 #6
Exactly. bvf Oct 2015 #9
I don't think anyone (anyone thinking, at least) who have voted based on religion in..... George II Oct 2015 #71
Then you haven't been paying attention... gcomeau Oct 2015 #90
Oh I've been paying attention, and religion has played very very little if anything.... George II Oct 2015 #95
Your conclusion refutes your claimed attention-paying. gcomeau Oct 2015 #100
That assumes that all candidates are equal except for gender. djean111 Oct 2015 #3
No woman ever was equal to any man running for president? boston bean Oct 2015 #4
Oh, I am sure that other forces were at work. Absolutely. djean111 Oct 2015 #7
The point was is that we have been voting based upon gender for the entire boston bean Oct 2015 #12
We vote for the candidates we are presented with. djean111 Oct 2015 #30
Name the 44 women you claim that we have chosen a man over a woman in our Autumn Oct 2015 #35
Has there been a woman president of the US, that I am unaware of? nt boston bean Oct 2015 #53
Have 44 women been passed over as president of the US, that I am unaware of? Autumn Oct 2015 #58
Umm it speaks for itself. boston bean Oct 2015 #61
Umm no it doesn't speak for itself. 44 men have not been chosen as President based on gender/sex Autumn Oct 2015 #66
Why wasn't there any women running for President? boston bean Oct 2015 #70
You will have to ask the women who never ran. Your claim is still false, Autumn Oct 2015 #75
uh huh... LOL boston bean Oct 2015 #77
I'll ask again knowing you can't answer. Got the names of those women who ran in the other Autumn Oct 2015 #78
This is really funny. nt boston bean Oct 2015 #84
You need to read a little history Skidmore Oct 2015 #80
That was interesting Bobbie Jo Oct 2015 #87
In the last 44 elections in our Nations history? And the men won based on their gender? Autumn Oct 2015 #99
Hindsight 2020 I wish we would have chosen a progressive instead of the corporate Obama. JRLeft Oct 2015 #62
Good point. nt sufrommich Oct 2015 #5
We need to vote for corporate Hillary because no woman has ever been President, too bad Elizabeth JRLeft Oct 2015 #8
I think it's high time we vote for a candidate based on the issues. Kalidurga Oct 2015 #10
It feels like it's been 50 about years since we did that. JRLeft Oct 2015 #11
I am not sure it's ever been done. Kalidurga Oct 2015 #13
People vote their pocketbooks treestar Oct 2015 #59
Are you fucking kidding me? cyberswede Oct 2015 #14
wow, didn't mean to piss you off so. nt boston bean Oct 2015 #16
Incredulous <> pissed off cyberswede Oct 2015 #17
No it hasn't. Not once has a President been elected because gender. Perhaps some folks have been TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #15
No it hasn't happened that a particular candidate has been voted for based on gender Autumn Oct 2015 #18
believe me history proves gender has a played a role. boston bean Oct 2015 #20
How so? Mostly only men have run. Where does gender fit in on the selection of a candidate if Autumn Oct 2015 #25
uh huh, there was nothing else going on for the first 100 years of this country.. boston bean Oct 2015 #26
That wasn't what you claimed. Name the women who ran for office in the first 100 years of this Autumn Oct 2015 #29
wow. boston bean Oct 2015 #38
You claim that 44 times we voted for a president based on gender/sex Autumn Oct 2015 #41
I thought the proof was in the pudding since only men have been elected president. boston bean Oct 2015 #44
Seems to me it could only be true if a woman ran against every one of them. cherokeeprogressive Oct 2015 #47
and, why didn't they have a woman running against them every single time? boston bean Oct 2015 #49
I do not pretend to speak for women on the question of why. That's a sucker's bet. cherokeeprogressive Oct 2015 #91
There were women running against them? Not sure what pudding has to do with it. Autumn Oct 2015 #50
We are discussing presidential elections and persons who have been elected president of the united boston bean Oct 2015 #51
Yes we are, you got 44 names of the women who have been passed over by voters selecting a Autumn Oct 2015 #54
What point are you trying to make. boston bean Oct 2015 #56
I'm trying to get you to enlighten me as to which elections 44 men have been chosen over Autumn Oct 2015 #64
I'm not responsible for enlightening you. boston bean Oct 2015 #65
You couldn't enlighten anyone because you made up a scenario that is made of steer manure Autumn Oct 2015 #67
I really don't think my post was "steer manure". But whatever...... nt boston bean Oct 2015 #69
So which women that have run for President have you voted for? Use the link below A Simple Game Oct 2015 #86
Were any of those persons elected president of the united states? nt boston bean Oct 2015 #88
To be elected only requires one thing. The most votes. A Simple Game Oct 2015 #93
I've never voted for a woman for president because I vote democrat boston bean Oct 2015 #96
It raises many more questions. For one, why would you put party before your convictions. A Simple Game Oct 2015 #97
Hmm weirdly interesting. boston bean Oct 2015 #98
The only interesting thing, but not at all surprising A Simple Game Oct 2015 #101
Thank the goddesses for that last statement! boston bean Oct 2015 #102
One does not logically follow from the other thesquanderer Oct 2015 #79
Ignoring history and woman's oppression is an easy thing to do for many persons. boston bean Oct 2015 #82
The fact that major parties have never put women at the top of the ticket thesquanderer Oct 2015 #94
Don't bother. You won't get a direct answer. This is not a discussion thread, cpompilo Oct 2015 #68
44 Presidents hfojvt Oct 2015 #85
Voting for a candidate based on their gender pinebox Oct 2015 #19
Obviously a Fiorina vs Clinton match up is best for America. JRLeft Oct 2015 #21
You can vote for Fiorina if you like, but I wouldn't. nt boston bean Oct 2015 #23
And you know I didn't say I'm for Fiorina, but I would expect nothing else from a Clinton supporter JRLeft Oct 2015 #31
Were you saying I would vote for Fiorina? That's how I took your post. boston bean Oct 2015 #36
No, I said since it is being implied we need a female match up we might as well go with 2 corporate JRLeft Oct 2015 #42
okaaayyy... nt boston bean Oct 2015 #45
your example is back to voting on gender n/t Sheepshank Oct 2015 #39
I choose candidates based on policy kenfrequed Oct 2015 #22
what is interesting is that the same policy platform presented by Hillary..... Sheepshank Oct 2015 #40
The policies are not the same. kenfrequed Oct 2015 #48
Hillary Clinton is the single most qualified presidential candidate in history. MohRokTah Oct 2015 #24
You do know that is just an opinion, not a fact, right? djean111 Oct 2015 #34
It is not an opinion, it is 100% factual. eom MohRokTah Oct 2015 #37
No... it isn't kenfrequed Oct 2015 #52
Save your energy... Chan790 Oct 2015 #74
LMFAO JRLeft Oct 2015 #104
So back it up with data. frylock Oct 2015 #92
It is about her qualification, not her disagreeing with you on some distinct issues treestar Oct 2015 #55
The things that Hillary and I disagree on disqualify her as a candidate that I would support and/or djean111 Oct 2015 #60
There are only 3 qualifications necessary to run Krytan11c Oct 2015 #103
In fact, we need more old white men to get in this race for diversity's sake. nt LexVegas Oct 2015 #27
Come to San Francisco RandySF Oct 2015 #28
In SF we have a corporate controlled mayor Ed Lee. A friend of venture capitalist Joe Lacob. JRLeft Oct 2015 #32
Read this article. JRLeft Oct 2015 #33
I'm dumber for reading this OP LondonReign2 Oct 2015 #43
perfect!!! Sheepshank Oct 2015 #46
So, Bernie is for the TPP and fracking and more H-1B visas and cluster bombs? djean111 Oct 2015 #73
There is probably no getting away from the fact treestar Oct 2015 #57
AKA low information voters. JRLeft Oct 2015 #105
Kick & highly recommended! William769 Oct 2015 #63
Agreed. Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2015 #72
So if it's Sanders vs Fiorina...? n/t That Guy 888 Oct 2015 #76
If Sanders beats Fiorina it will be 45 times that gender/sex has decided the winner. DesMoinesDem Oct 2015 #81
If there are people who are not familiar with "You are female, no need to apply, this is a position" Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #83
I promise not to vote on gender this election Travis_0004 Oct 2015 #89
Lets have 44 women get a turn. bravenak Oct 2015 #106

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
1. Voting for a particular candidate based on religion has happened 44 times in our nations history.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 08:56 AM
Oct 2015

It's high time we stop doing that!

George II

(67,782 posts)
71. I don't think anyone (anyone thinking, at least) who have voted based on religion in.....
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:06 AM
Oct 2015

....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)
90. Then you haven't been paying attention...
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:49 AM
Oct 2015

...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)
95. Oh I've been paying attention, and religion has played very very little if anything....
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 12:23 PM
Oct 2015

...in Presidential elections.

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
100. Your conclusion refutes your claimed attention-paying.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 02:59 PM
Oct 2015

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)
3. That assumes that all candidates are equal except for gender.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 08:59 AM
Oct 2015

No, they are not. And gender does not override the differences, in this case.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
7. Oh, I am sure that other forces were at work. Absolutely.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:10 AM
Oct 2015

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)
12. The point was is that we have been voting based upon gender for the entire
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:21 AM
Oct 2015

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)
30. We vote for the candidates we are presented with.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:55 AM
Oct 2015

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.

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.

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.

And for some it is because they really don't want a woman president.

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)
35. Name the 44 women you claim that we have chosen a man over a woman in our
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:07 AM
Oct 2015

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.

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
58. Have 44 women been passed over as president of the US, that I am unaware of?
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:38 AM
Oct 2015

Your claim is

Voting for a particular candidate based on gender/sex has happened 44 times in our nations history.

It's high time we stop doing that!
See the bolded part where you say that it has happened 44 times?

here's the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251708508

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
66. Umm no it doesn't speak for itself. 44 men have not been chosen as President based on gender/sex
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:50 AM
Oct 2015

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.

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
75. You will have to ask the women who never ran. Your claim is still false,
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:23 AM
Oct 2015

the only woman who actually mounted a full scale run was Hillary. And wisely enough, voters chose Obama over her.

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
78. I'll ask again knowing you can't answer. Got the names of those women who ran in the other
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:26 AM
Oct 2015

43 presidential races where voters chose the man over any woman based on gender?

Bobbie Jo

(14,341 posts)
87. That was interesting
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:46 AM
Oct 2015

The first woman I remember was Shirley Chisholm in 1972.

Loved her!

Thanks for the link...

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
99. In the last 44 elections in our Nations history? And the men won based on their gender?
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 01:28 PM
Oct 2015

Read the OP. Educate yourself and read what I responded to. Here let me help you, this is the claim.

Voting for a particular candidate based on gender/sex has happened 44 times in our nations history.

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)
62. Hindsight 2020 I wish we would have chosen a progressive instead of the corporate Obama.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:42 AM
Oct 2015

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.

 

JRLeft

(7,010 posts)
8. We need to vote for corporate Hillary because no woman has ever been President, too bad Elizabeth
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:10 AM
Oct 2015

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)
13. I am not sure it's ever been done.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:23 AM
Oct 2015

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)
59. People vote their pocketbooks
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:38 AM
Oct 2015

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.

TheKentuckian

(24,949 posts)
15. No it hasn't. Not once has a President been elected because gender. Perhaps some folks have been
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:26 AM
Oct 2015

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)
18. No it hasn't happened that a particular candidate has been voted for based on gender
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:32 AM
Oct 2015

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.

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
25. How so? Mostly only men have run. Where does gender fit in on the selection of a candidate if
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:47 AM
Oct 2015

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)
26. uh huh, there was nothing else going on for the first 100 years of this country..
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:49 AM
Oct 2015

And there has never been a barrier for women in politics.

OK....

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
29. That wasn't what you claimed. Name the women who ran for office in the first 100 years of this
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:54 AM
Oct 2015

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

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
49. and, why didn't they have a woman running against them every single time?
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:31 AM
Oct 2015

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)
91. I do not pretend to speak for women on the question of why. That's a sucker's bet.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 12:14 PM
Oct 2015

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)
50. There were women running against them? Not sure what pudding has to do with it.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:32 AM
Oct 2015

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)
51. We are discussing presidential elections and persons who have been elected president of the united
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:32 AM
Oct 2015

states.

Stay on topic, please.

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
54. Yes we are, you got 44 names of the women who have been passed over by voters selecting a
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:35 AM
Oct 2015

president based on gender/sex yet?

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
56. What point are you trying to make.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:36 AM
Oct 2015

That no woman has ever been president of the United States... ??

If that is that case then yes we agree.

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
64. I'm trying to get you to enlighten me as to which elections 44 men have been chosen over
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:46 AM
Oct 2015

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...

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
67. You couldn't enlighten anyone because you made up a scenario that is made of steer manure
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:52 AM
Oct 2015

have a nice day, and by that I mean have a nice day.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
86. So which women that have run for President have you voted for? Use the link below
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:45 AM
Oct 2015

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.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
93. To be elected only requires one thing. The most votes.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 12:18 PM
Oct 2015

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:

Why wasn't there any women running for President?

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)
96. I've never voted for a woman for president because I vote democrat
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 12:44 PM
Oct 2015

and there has never been a woman nominated for president on that ticket.

Does that answer your question?

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
97. It raises many more questions. For one, why would you put party before your convictions.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 01:08 PM
Oct 2015

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)
98. Hmm weirdly interesting.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 01:11 PM
Oct 2015

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)
101. The only interesting thing, but not at all surprising
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 04:55 PM
Oct 2015

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.

thesquanderer

(11,955 posts)
79. One does not logically follow from the other
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:28 AM
Oct 2015

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)
82. Ignoring history and woman's oppression is an easy thing to do for many persons.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:35 AM
Oct 2015

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)
94. The fact that major parties have never put women at the top of the ticket
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 12:20 PM
Oct 2015

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)
68. Don't bother. You won't get a direct answer. This is not a discussion thread,
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:59 AM
Oct 2015

its a soliloquy. Next OP please...

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
85. 44 Presidents
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:41 AM
Oct 2015

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)
19. Voting for a candidate based on their gender
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:35 AM
Oct 2015

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)
21. Obviously a Fiorina vs Clinton match up is best for America.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:42 AM
Oct 2015


Financial industry vs The Tech industry. America loses either way.
 

JRLeft

(7,010 posts)
31. And you know I didn't say I'm for Fiorina, but I would expect nothing else from a Clinton supporter
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:57 AM
Oct 2015
 

JRLeft

(7,010 posts)
42. No, I said since it is being implied we need a female match up we might as well go with 2 corporate
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:22 AM
Oct 2015

candidates.

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
22. I choose candidates based on policy
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:44 AM
Oct 2015

I don't care what gender a candidate is, policy will always trump everything else.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
40. what is interesting is that the same policy platform presented by Hillary.....
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:21 AM
Oct 2015

....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)
48. The policies are not the same.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:29 AM
Oct 2015

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)
24. Hillary Clinton is the single most qualified presidential candidate in history.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:46 AM
Oct 2015

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)
34. You do know that is just an opinion, not a fact, right?
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:05 AM
Oct 2015

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.

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
52. No... it isn't
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:33 AM
Oct 2015

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)
74. Save your energy...
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:18 AM
Oct 2015

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

treestar

(82,383 posts)
55. It is about her qualification, not her disagreeing with you on some distinct issues
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:36 AM
Oct 2015

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)
60. The things that Hillary and I disagree on disqualify her as a candidate that I would support and/or
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:41 AM
Oct 2015

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)
103. There are only 3 qualifications necessary to run
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 06:44 PM
Oct 2015

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.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
46. perfect!!!
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:24 AM
Oct 2015

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)
73. So, Bernie is for the TPP and fracking and more H-1B visas and cluster bombs?
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:10 AM
Oct 2015

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)
57. There is probably no getting away from the fact
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:37 AM
Oct 2015

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.

 

DesMoinesDem

(1,569 posts)
81. If Sanders beats Fiorina it will be 45 times that gender/sex has decided the winner.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:32 AM
Oct 2015

It's high time we stop doing that!

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
83. If there are people who are not familiar with "You are female, no need to apply, this is a position"
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:35 AM
Oct 2015

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)
89. I promise not to vote on gender this election
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:49 AM
Oct 2015

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.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Voting for a particular c...