TownieDeac
words are futile devices
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 76,189
- Reaction score
- 16,925
I don’t think that is what’s being discussed. This is the VP pick thread on a tangent about sexism.
You're moving around in time, Ph. My claim is that voters are sexist and voted with their feet. The fact that the most diverse candidate pool of all time came down to two white men over the age of 75 confirms this take. Your claim is that it was all about name recognition and that nobody besides Pete ran a good campaign. Only, it's not always about name recognition unless your complementary claim is that the electorate is stupid and can only possibly vote for whomever is getting the lion's share of media coverage at a given moment. If that's not what you're arguing, then this seems like it's getting into "electability" territory. I'll probably sit the rest of this one out in that case because I'm not interested in arguing based on an intangible, floating concept that nobody can quite pin down because at its core is the proposition that the most electable candidates are moderate older white men and nobody wants to admit that the democratic electorate is compromised of sexist reactionaries.
Nobody wants to admit it because it's a dumb argument that doesn't make any sense.
Yeah. Again, the presumptive nominee said he’s only considering women for VP and there has been no backlash from within this “sexist” party electorate.
Not even 4 years ago Clinton beat trump by 3 million votes. 3 years later, as the voters supposedly become more diverse, the democratic subset has become sexist. Interesting
The backlash is why he’s only considering women for VP. Good lord, y’all.
The Democratic Party becomes more inclusive and diverse, and nominates... Joe Biden over... Bernie Sanders.
The base was reactionary in its voting behavior. And that reactionary sentiment in this case is sexism in part because of how Clinton lost (and proved to be unelectable - am I doing this right, ChrisL?)
A campaign isn’t just raising your profile
I wouldn’t say Pete ran a great campaign so much as he was the most polished at debates
He didn’t built a diverse or large base or register many new voters or collect much data
He did very well considering who he was though, which is to say, nobody of any consequence to the party or the nation
Pete ran a very good campaign (money, name out, new contacts, set up for a future run). He just did not run a modern campaign. Data, online small donations, etc. Likely a byproduct of the people he brought in to help.
Which backlash are you talking about? Where is that backlash from if not the electorate you’re calling sexist?
Strick, we each have an explanation for the post-Obama nominations. My argument is that Democrats nominated the candidates with the most name recognition. I support that by saying explaining that those candidates were Obama’s VP and first SOS. The fact that the 2020 runner-up was the 2016 runner-up supports my argument.
Your argument is that the Dem electorate is sexist.
The backlash was obviously regarding the fact that the most diverse pool of candidates resulted in a contest between Biden and Sanders with a Biden nomination. We discussed this at length while it was happening. The backlash was largely from the media and from the punditry class. The electorate doesn't have a voice/platform beyond its vote/nomination.
So you're saying Biden faced backlash only from the media and punditry class?