• 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!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

RJKarl said:
First of all, your ignorance of American history is showing. Geraldine Ferraro was the first female nominated by one of the major parties. Secondly, Palin provided all the ammo anyone needed herself. She is a moron and proved it over and over and over and over again.
Click to expand...

Getting dunked on by RJ is rock bottom
 
sailordeac said:
Pocahontas is trying to steal her undisputed position as Ms Inauthenticity, and she's making headway.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is one thing...your racism is disgusting and shows your true character.
 
tiltdeac said:
Do you really believe this? Or maybe it's a weird semantic thing? Put another way, do you think the same action or behavior is likely to result in a male or female candidate to be viewed as equally "unlikable" in the public eye? Lots of data to prove otherwise, no?
Click to expand...

No. But that’s not the argument people are making. People are saying that Hillary and Warren should be judged on their policy chops. That’s different then how men candidates are judged.

This isn’t like a component woman and a dumb bro going up for some middle management job. This is a presidential election in which competent men are regularly dismissed because people wouldn’t have a beer with them.

Honestly, the current standard should favor women and minorities and progressives in the long run. All three groups are less likely to have policy experience and successes compared to white male establishment politicians. The 2018 class of Dems has plenty of women I would love to have a beer with.
 
Last edited:
WFcatamount22 said:
This is rich considering the democrats absolutely ruthlessly destroyed and attacked on all fronts the first women vice president candidate. Doesn't count through because it is not your team.

Interestingly enough for all her faults Hillary was one of the few dems who refused to get in mud and attack Palin on personal sexist level, and was critical of the party for doing so.
Click to expand...

Haas anyone noted that Geraldine Ferraro was the first candidate for VP from a Major party?
 
PhDeac said:
No. But that’s not the argument people are making. People are saying that Hillary and Warren should be judged on their policy chops. That’s different then how men candidates are judged.

This isn’t like a component woman and a dumb bro going up for some middle management job. This is a presidential election in which competent men are regularly dismissed because people wouldn’t have a beer with them.

Honestly, the current standard should favor women and minorities and progressives in the long run. All three groups are less likely to have policy experience and successes compared to white male establishment politicians. The 2018 class of Dems has plenty of women I would love to have a beer with.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's really the argument either, at least with regard to the "double standard" talk. People may argue that people should judge politicians more on their policy chops, and that likability *should* matter less, but I don't think anyone is arguing that likability doesn't matter in elections, it clearly does, and that's the point. If women are more likely to be deemed unlikable than men for the same actions and traits, especially those traits that tend to be inherent in people vying for high level public office, that's a huge double standard, no?
 
Fox News doing very normal and good things

 
PhDeac said:
No. But that’s not the argument people are making. People are saying that Hillary and Warren should be judged on their policy chops. That’s different then how men candidates are judged.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you here. People arent complaining about the general standard for electability, people are complaining that women are being unfairly labeled as "unlikable" for common traits they share with men, particularly for being driven and/or stern.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
I disagree with you here. People arent complaining about the general standard for electability, people are complaining that women are being unfairly labeled as "unlikable" for common traits they share with men, particularly for being driven and/or stern.
Click to expand...

That’s the argument I’ve seen. I’ll post them if you want. The Connie Shultz “homecoming queen” tweet got a lot of run yesterday.

You have an argument in general but I think a male Hillary wouldn’t be that likable either. Come to think about it, male Hillary is similar to Romney in a lot of ways.

I think there are plenty of women who have run recently who are beloved on the left. Keep in mind the right isn’t going to like any candidate on the left especially a woman.
 
A female presidential candidate is going to necessarily be equally or more driven than her male opponents, and her personality is going to reflect that. There won't be any shy submissive housewives or demure debutantes running. Sarah Palin tried that lane I think, and she was an even bigger joke for it.
 
Last edited:
ImTheCaptain said:
of what
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Junebug often, but it is certainly within the realm of the possible. Let's say Trump loses in 2020, or worse, loses badly. And there is an economic downturn that begins next year and continues into the Dem's 1st term. Who will the Pub nominee be in 2024? Romney is getting too old and is despised by the populist wing. Cruz is too hated. Rubio is a lightweight who shrank when he had his shot. I think Sasse and Haley are their 2 best bets. And if the economy isn't great in 2024, and/or the Dems fumble health care reform, either Sasse or Haley could win.

Edited to add that I just saw on Politico that Feinstein has endorsed Uncle Joe, and MOM has endorsed Beto. Game changers.
 
Last edited:
cville deac said:
I don't agree with Junebug often, but it is certainly within the realm of the possible. Let's say Trump loses in 2020, or worse, loses badly. And there is an economic downturn that begins next year and continues into the Dem's 1st term. Who will the Pub nominee be in 2024? Romney is getting too old and is despised by the populist wing. Cruz is too hated. Rubio is a lightweight who shrank when he had his shot. I think Sasse and Haley are their 2 best bets. And if the economy isn't great in 2024, and/or the Dems fumble health care reform, either Sasse or Haley could win.

Edited to add that I just saw on Politico that Feinstein has endorsed Uncle Joe, and MOM has endorsed Beto. Game changers.
Click to expand...

The GOP needs a much longer punishment for what they have done to our politics and our country than one term of the presidency. Their only punishment for Nixon was a single term of Jimmy Carter and they deserve so much more for Trump and this racist grifting shitshow that they foisted upon us.
 
PhDeac said:
That’s the argument I’ve seen. I’ll post them if you want. The Connie Shultz “homecoming queen” tweet got a lot of run yesterday.

You have an argument in general but I think a male Hillary wouldn’t be that likable either. Come to think about it, male Hillary is similar to Romney in a lot of ways.

I think there are plenty of women who have run recently who are beloved on the left. Keep in mind the right isn’t going to like any candidate on the left especially a woman.
Click to expand...

Make Hillary isn’t held accountable for the sins of “his” spouse, which really started the decades long hatred
 
Shooshmoo said:
Says likeability is not a double standard and then posts this:
Click to expand...

Ah. So you're complaining that Republicans don't like powerful women? Well yeah. That's obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top