The edges are sharp on those voting machines and you could injure yourself.

If you insist on doing this, I would bring along a bottle of disinfectant and paper towels. You know...wipe off the voting machine after you've finished, just like you would wipe off the tread mill at the gym after a vigorous run.

Good luck.

disappointed in you.

And you voted for a man since, until now, men were the only ones running.

I don't really get the point of your OP.

But I will keep reading, and maybe I'll get it.

Have a good morning!

guess they weren't women.

I just wish one was running who wasn't deeply entrenched in establishment, corporate dem leadership.

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/14/hillary-clintons-corporatist-party/

Since I have been voting. Well, Obama successfully swindled me the first time.

I have a chance to vote for something, not just against repukes.

I find it curious.

Hell, I've been doing it my entire voting life as well.

I assume you are talking about the GE, because there aren't any republicans running in the Democratic Primary.

Well, hope you have a fucking grand time with the greater of the two evils.

reminded me of another poster on this website.

Is this a new thing?

Take a look at the titles in the Latest Breaking News threads - Capitol Letters are used on pronouns

and now for Grammar Nazi viewing pleasure ...

Or should I have capitalized a couple words in there?

Great response, FreakinDJ!

That shouldn't even be part of your decision.

I don't understand the reason for your post.

Support whoever you think is best on the most amount of issues.

I will.

You guys got this all sewn up.

Cynthia McKinney was on the ballot in 2008.

And who knows? After she gets through chasing down those dalmatian puppies and gets back in the campaign, maybe Carly Fiorina will get the Republican nomination for 2016.

I think virtually everyone here would.

In past elections, those of us who were voting back then voted for a woman for VP in 1984 and against a woman for VP in 2008. Over on the right, I'm sure that a lot of the people who want to restrict reproductive rights, repeal the Lily Ledbetter Act (and perhaps even the Equal Pay Act), etc., nevertheless voted in 2008 to put a woman a heartbeat away.

The point is that, for most voters, gender doesn't enter into these decisions to any significant extent.

There are exceptions. If Clinton is the nominee (against any male Republican), some generally Republican voters, especially younger women, will vote for her despite her issue positions because they want to break that glass ceiling; and some generally Democratic voters, especially older men, will refuse to vote for her because they don't think a woman can stand up to Putin. My wild unscientific guess is that the effect of the gender factor would be a small net gain for Clinton.

But I agree with your implication that policy is much more important.

or the interests of my family.

I don't care what their gender is-- I care more about how trustworthy they are and what their record is. At the presidential level, it doesn't matter one whit how I vote in the general election, since my state always votes overwhelmingly for one party or another. It's always been that way in my lifetime, and even my mother's lifetime. Arkansas's presidential vote is about as predictable as a summer heat wave in Death Valley.

At the primary level, however, I want the best candidate, and I sometimes have a marginal say in the outcome, particularly, maybe, next year, when my state joins Super Tuesday. Hillary's years in Arkansas have become almost mythical in this forum, but from my viewpoint they are vastly overrrated. She may have been somewhat liberal in the '70s, when she was virtually unknown outside of LIttle Rock and the University of Arkansas, but she became rather corporatized after her husband won his second term as governor in 1982. Her education "reform", which is often touted as some sort of success, was basically an early form of No Child Left Behind-- teaching for the test, rather than teaching for learning and thinking. And six years after joining the board of Arkansas's richest Republican, Sam Walton, she and her husband palled up with Mr. Republican of Arkansas, Jackson Stephens, to finance Bill's nascent presidential campaign in 1992. So when I hear that Hillary has always been a diehard liberal who kicked Republican butt in Arkansas, I just have to laugh.

So to answer your question, I vote for Democrats who act like Democrats, that is, Democrats whom I respected when I cast my first vote back in the '70s. That includes people like John and Robert Kennedy, J. William Fulbright, Dale Bumpers, Frank Church, Mike Mansfield, Bella Abzug, and Shirley Chisholm. Even LBJ, minus the Vietnam War. In my mind, Bernie is the candidate who best resembles those Democrats.

because there were no females to vote for.

Yep, LEAST DETRIMENTAL ALTERNATIVE

There were times when there were some good, if not great choices: Obama heads that list.

However, most of the time, in local, state and national elections, I am looking for the person that will do the least harm.

If Hillary unfortunately gets the nod, it will be another LDA election under my belt. I will not work for her, but I will not work against her. I live in a definitely Blue State -- California -- and I will grudgingly fill in the circle by her name and feel sick as having to make this choice when there are so many better choices for this country. I have never passed a Prez vote in my life and just because Hillary is there, I am not going to pass my vote. Like I said, it will make me ill...but the alternatives are far, far worse. She is just bad news, IMO, the others have entered into the evil zone.

JMHO

The "never shall I vote for a woman" has now morphed into "I'll vote for a woman but not this woman" crowd. They don't see the irony that the end result of their position is the same.

Who has ever said such things.

eom

Hillary would still be my last choice. It's her policies -- NOT HER PLUMBING!!!!!!

you know nothing of?

That seems a bit extreme, no?

I looked at her policies and her past actions -- I don't agree and/or support most of what she has done. Her gender is not relevant.

I would not agree and/or support her past actions if she were male, transgendered or any imaginable ilk of genitalia, including asexual. WOMEN DO NOT THINK WITH THEIR VAGINAS. Get over it, OK? I entered into a male dominated profession when women attorneys were rather rare. I got called "honey," "sweetheart", "dear" and asked when in Judge's chambers to take the notes on the conference.

I have been there and done that...there is nothing that makes me pro and/or anti a candidate because of the plumbing. Hear me: I was a TRIAL ATTORNEY -- not a FEMALE TRIAL ATTORNEY. My gender did not matter. Getting the job done mattered and I can damn well tell you that I NEVER had a client come into my office and say, "I am here cuz you are a woman." They came because I got the job done and they knew it.

Get over it, OK? Female or not female: HER POLICIES SUCK, IMO. That's my opinion and if she were a man, my opinion would be the same. She is way, way too moderate for me. I am a liberal and have been one since in grade school in the 1960s in a solid Repub mid-west town I began to support socialized medicine for everyone. My Repubbie, Country Club parents were appalled. But...I stood my ground and I have never backed down or seen it necessary to resort to my gender for support for and/or against me.

Your concentration on gender? I find that extreme. Her plumbing is NOT important. Her policies are.

Really, bad ass.

Any woman in the world is better than her?

And more importantly are actually obtainable.

Of you think gender doesn't matter, you haven't been paying attention. No righteous rant will ever EVER change that.

Was that not the meme when Mondale ran with Geraldine Ferraro

You certainly have a "Tough road to plough" and I sincerely wish you and your choice all the best

"But I ask you what was I voting with when I voted for all those men? I don't have a penis, so I wasn't voting with that."

That makes SENSE to you?

You have verified that. Only a couple of posters have admitted to being sick and tired of voting for white men, but I suspect it's quite a prevalent feeling among a segment of the population. This op was quite a strange rant.

That certain Sanders supporters are voting for him because he is a man. Terrified of true change.

eom

So when Clinton loses the primary and Carly wins the GOP nomination, you'll be voting for the GOP in the general.

With you, does gender trump good sense?

if your ONLY defense is "Hillary is a woman", then I will say that's a very weak argument. Incredibly so.
What matters IS THE ISSUES and nothing more. That's what really matters. Gender doesn't make policy, the person does however. Remember, the next candidate will have an impact on you and possibly your kids if you have any for the next 4 years and maybe 8.

You'll be voting for the woman? That is essentially what you're saying here.

Thats what I think you're saying.

If that isn't true then your OP isn't clear.

You said nothing about her party.

Reading isn't rocket science. Your words are crystal clear. The words in the OP that is.

We have hit a stone wall here, I suppose.

Built by your own hand.

Think she made that clear.

Yup. Seems clear to me.

That means I vote based on sex?

No one seemed to think I was voting based on sex all the times I voted for a male candidate.

Such a double standard. A woman voting for a woman, means she is voting based on sex. A woman voting for a male candidate (sometimes one that is not ideal), when no female has ever been on the ballot is not.

Wow.... so much to unravel here with so little time, and really don't want to have to explain how incredibly stupid this line of attack is.

That's not what you said in your OP. You said, and I quote "I will have a choice to vote for a woman, and I will if given the chance".

But if you please, point to exactly where I have changed my position. You know, take the entire OP, not one little sentence you think you confer your own meaning onto.

You simply said "I will have a choice to vote for a woman, and I will if given the chance"

I can only go on what your words were. If you want to change them now, that's fine.

How about you go with what I did say in totality instead of some stuff you made up.

It's fine if you want to change your stance now.

If you think that means what you say it does, there is nothing I can do to help you.

I know sometimes when people say things, they later regret them. No harm no foul.

Many of us knew that already

Really?

Is Fiorina someone likely to be on the ballot in the GE? Cause what I said is I will likely be able to vote for a woman this time. And being a democrat on a democratic board, figured I was pretty safe in assuming people knew I was speaking of Hillary, but my bad on that.

But you go on ahead, you got a good little scenario brewing there in your imagination, that I wouldn't want to get in the way of. I'm use to having words put in my mouth, as a woman, it happens quite often. Us woman don't usually know what's good for us, right? I mean, in your eyes, we could never support Clinton for any reason other than her sharing the same sex... But never get questioned on who we vote for when voting for males for the last almost 100 years.... because, just because. The only reason women would vote for a woman is because we share the same sex? That type of opinion is stupid, insulting and sexist.

Thanks for proving the point of the OP.

I believe that will change in 2016. Since the woman who probably will appear on my ballot is a Democrat, then I'll be voting for her enthusiastically. I always vote for the Democratic presidential candidate and for Democrats in general.

Betty McCollum is my congressional representative and Amy Klobuchar is one of my senators. I'm proud of them for their support of important issues in Congress. That's why I voted for them. That's why I vote for Democrats. They do better for us than Republicans.

I'll gladly vote for a woman for President. I can't see how the gender of a candidate has anything to do with it. In a fair world, at least half of our candidates would be women, in keeping with the gender distribution in our society.

It would be nice to have a woman as president. I'm thinking Elizabeth Warren or somebody like that.

So strange?

I just made a simple statement.

Do you always over complicate things?

the whole point of confronting patriarchy is related to the issues of men in power and how and why they get there. so yeah, I think we (mostly) have "accused," stated, complained, articulated, pointed out, and otherwise noted that sexism has been driving politics and most other social institutions for (way more) than the past 200 years.

We are talking two real different things here.

Men holding power over and unfair advantage over women based on sex and accusing women of sexism or playing a gender card and voting only for a woman because they have a vagina is not the same.

Women were never accused of voting for a male based on sex. This is a new phenomena we are witnessing. One that happens to really favor men by attempting to shame women who are voting for a woman.

it seems a lot of people in this thread misunderstand what you wrote in the OP. I see where the confusion comes from, but all the cross talk is not very productive.

saying one will be able to vote for a woman and will do it is a hair different than saying the that one is going to be voting for some one who is in political alignment AND is a woman. I am pretty sure you grasp that. the first obviously leaves one open to questions of does that mean ANY woman? and if the answer was yes (I know that it is not) then the decision could be seen as sexist.

however, my comment was attempting to point out that we do indeed "accuse" men of voting for men because they are men (or rather just plain keeping women out because they are women). the whole system is sexist.

However my stating I will vote for a woman is fact. It doesnt mean i am only voting for a woman because she is a woman.

Second, sexism does exist in politics but it isnt coming from women who will cast a vote for a woman. Throughout this thread i have pointed the the history, sexist history of men controlling this process as a way to show how women werent being accused of sexism in voting for men even though there was a sexist component. Not originating from women though.

"Second, sexism does exist in politics but it isnt coming from women who will cast a vote for a woman." by adding the word "all" or the phrase "the majority of."

Second, sexism does exist in politics but it isnt coming from all (or the majority of) women who will cast a vote for a woman.

the historical importance of her run. I sincerely doubt that many people are voting for her only beause she is a woman. But attempts to deny people the pride of voting for the first female nominee is a real dirty tactic.

I see a lot of blather about her and her supporters that is just over the top crap, but haven't seen anybody denying the pride of voting for a female. I see some (legitimate) concern about whether that is a good enough criteria to be the major reason to vote for her, but I suspect tons of people would really love to be voting for a first female candidate that they really agree with politically. Lots of wish-it-were-Warren folks around.

Based on sex as you have seen throughtout this thread is a way to deligitimize my vote and her candidacy.

self-fulfilling reaction to the way you worded the OP, I don't see anybody out there doing that in general.

of course I have to give my usual disclaimer - I am trying to avoid gdp so maybe it is going on. but I haven't seen it anywhere casually from getting called to juries or the random thread I actually look at.

this website.

You need to use the disclaimer on this.

I don't make this shit up out of thin air. I've been confronted with it for MONTHS!

ETA I appreciate the conversation with you though. Thank you.

and that even though you know the candidate you support will not be a good choice for the country, you don't care because you are just plain fed up with having to vote for (eeyew) men.

It takes courage to admit that you plan to vote for an inferior candidate on the basis of plumbing, but I applaud you for being brave enough to do it!

But I am proud of you for being honest enough to disclose what you plan to do this time.

To paraphrase your post - "I know my candidate is awful, but I'm voting for her because she has an innie rather than an outie".

in the GE was that I only had the option of voting for a male. I can't believe there hasn't been one single qualified women to win the nomination. But since we women have only been allowed to vote for the last 95 years, I would assume some of the voting was in fact based upon sex, which is rarely discussed or taken into consideration. Which is really fascinating if you think of it, cause not once were people accused of voting based on sex until we have a woman who very likely will be nominated for President in the year 2016.

So, yes I will vote for a woman. That you want to say my vote is based on sex only is your characterization. Not mine.

As is obvious I am writing about the Democratic nomination. You know, something we discuss incessantly here in GDP, the only place you can discuss the Democratic Primary?

best candidate. Voting against Clinton just because she is female is a poor excuse.

"This time, seems likely I will have a choice to vote for a woman, and I will if given the chance."

pretending you don't know who I am talking about here in GDP on Democratic Underground is fascinating really.

I can't believe you mean what you said.

And I'm pretty sure you would consider me friendly compared to some people here

I have not yet read this thread so my response is only to your OP.

For a thought experiment try replacing woman with man and man with woman and vagina with penis and vice versa.

Do you intend to vote for Carly Fiorina should she be the only female candidate in the 2016 election?

Would you be happy with Ben Carson or Pizza Guy (can't remember his name) as the first Black POTUS?

I do not want to be forced to vote for Hillary Clinton because of her track record, her stated positions on policy, and my perceptions of her character; her sex or race or religion or other identity is immaterial.

So many potential voters within the Democratic Party and others in the USA have such earned and crazy talk bad impressions of HRC she represents the GOPs greatest hope of winning the 2016 POTUS election. Her candidacy not only exposed the DP to this risk but has blocked any of a number of potential good Democratic candidates that may have made an effort in this election cycle.

Do we really need another avowed Christian as President?

If you voted for them because they were the best candidate and you're voting for Hillary because solely because she has a vagina, then you're kind of being a hypocrite by explicitly asking to be called out for it and so you should be called out for it.

Hillary is certainly not the best choice by any metric. If you oppose what Hillary is running on, then Sanders is a better choice. If you support what Hillary is running on, then vote GOP...it's a more full-throat version of the exact same policies. Because that's what Hillary is...a milquetoast half-hearted Republican. To Hell with her.

I've voted for lots of women for President, including the ones I wrote in because I don't vote for DLCers or Clintons or the allies of either.

This is the woman I most recently voted for, for President:


Her name is Jill Stein and despite having no chance of ever being elected President, she'd be a damned sight better as President than Hillary "Fake Democrat" Clinton.