• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Dem VP - who ya' got

I don’t think that is what’s being discussed. This is the VP pick thread on a tangent about sexism.
 
Strickland33 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Nobody wants to admit it because it's a dumb argument that doesn't make any sense.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Nobody wants to admit it because it's a dumb argument that doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

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
 
PhDeac said:
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.
Click to expand...

The backlash is why he’s only considering women for VP. Good lord, y’all.
 
harmoniousmonk said:
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
Click to expand...

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?)
 
Strickland33 said:
The backlash is why he’s only considering women for VP. Good lord, y’all.
Click to expand...

Which backlash are you talking about? Where is that backlash from if not the electorate you’re calling sexist?

Strickland33 said:
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?)
Click to expand...

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.
 
TownieDeac said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
deaconson said:
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.
Click to expand...

Part of that could be that at the beginning the stars wouldn't take the chance with him. I hope they all sign on in 22 for his Senate run.
 
PhDeac said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

As to the rest - you're over simplifying my argument, but it's fine. It's a bit insulting, but whatever. We'll re-evaluate in four years. Assuming we're all not dead from COVID at that point, I look forward to more enthusiastic support of female candidates than this board showed during this election cycle.

I just hope that from a diverse pool of candidates, we'll get a nominee that isn't a white guy over the age of 60 who has spent the majority of his life in politics. It seems like our country could use some leadership from somebody who doesn't fit within those (electable) parameters.
 
TenaciousKory said:
hmm.

https://www.thecut.com/2020/02/chris-matthews-elizabeth-warren-believe-women.html
Click to expand...

There are hundreds of examples of shit like this happening in the primary cycle. I don't even like Kamala Harris and the discourse surrounding around her candidacy and campaign was just ridiculous. Never mind the fact that Pete Buttigieg probably torpedoed Warren's chances by going after Warren, not Sanders, about M4A on the debate stage. So many examples, so much board amnesia.
 
So you're saying Biden faced backlash only from the media and punditry class? Do you theink the sexist electorate wouldn't vote Biden now because he's committed to a woman VP?
 
Strickland33 said:
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.
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
So you're saying Biden faced backlash only from the media and punditry class?
Click to expand...

lol
 
Just trying to say if you want Strick to elaborate on his point, you could ask him to clarify instead of just deliberately misreading him.
 
Good to see you people discussing Pete, who had disappeared from the national consciousness for the past three and a half months.
 
There wasn't any backlash that forced Biden to select a (black) woman, it's smart politics. You have a diverse voting base and you are characterizing your opponents as a party of old white men. It makes sense that if a white man is leading your ticket, that you branch out in the VP selection.

the last 3 presidential nominees were a black man twice and a white woman. The idea that dem voters are sexist and racist because they picked a white man this time just escapes me.
 
Tammy Duckworth, Val Demings

Kamala Harris doesn’t connect although solid.

Elizabeth Warren would be a disaster,

Amy Klobuchar would be a good president IMO which is hugely importan with uncle joes age
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top