It’s not a theory, if you believe the candidate, let’s call him B. Obama… no too obvious lets call him Barack O. has enough talent, charisma, support from key constituencies, whatever, to offset the racists then it’s more practical to chose him, minority status notwithtstanding.
If not, then you don’t.
I think the empirical approach is that, unfortunately, both are important, it’s a matter of determining if advantages in one area offset disadvantages in the other.
Possibly. But we don’t know exactly how much race and gender impact results. We can only guess. I think it’s much wiser to choose the most skilled, most talented, etc., candidate. That’s what gives us the best chance of winning.
You also don’t know how much talent and skill impact results, it’s all guessing, for both areas.
Yes, it’s all guessing. IMO, guessing “MUST BE A WHITE MAN!” is not only catering to racists, but contributing to racism, as well as the kind of defeatism that can harm our chances, even if the only goal is to win.
That attitude would have meant no Obama!
There are others out there who may have the ability of Obama. We should be open to supporting them.
I agree
To win the presidency, Democrats will need the votes of racists, sexists, bigots, the uneducated, the backward, even the illiterate and the stupid. So yeah, without exactly catering to them, I believe we need to put forth a candidate that they will not object to.
I wish it was not this way. Frankly, this is not the country that I thought I was growing up in. But after Trump was elected, all the hatred and racism that was sort of hidden came out into the open. And it’s what is openly running this country now. And it’s what will continue to run the country unless we commit to a realistic strategy to change that. Realistic, based on what is, not
solely on principles or what we wish or what we thought it was or how we hoped it would be.
I have presented my position. I’m retiring from this debate.
IMO it’s completely nuts that you’re rejecting even the possibility of a very, very talented candidate who’s not a white man. That’s just crazy. It would have meant no Obama!
I’m with ThelmaLou on this one. Obama was elected amid the worst economic downturn since 1930, and against a candidate (McCain) who ran a bad campaign.
Yes, Obama won reelection four years later, but that was after he showed enough Americans that they needn’t fear him, specifically.
To be fair to ThelmaLou, it’s not 2008. A lot of people are politically traumatized by the outcomes of HRClinton and KHarris vs Trump and observe how the one break we got was when it was decided to run the Averagest Old Average White Guy.
The first time I heard Obama speak, I said to myself, “That man is going to be President.” A lot of people had that reaction. It was written all over him. Obama was a once-in-a-lifetime Superstar.
I do not see anyone remotely like Obama in the Democrats’ lineup. Find me another Obama, and I will happily endorse him. Not that my endorsement matters one bit. I recognize that.
Just wait for the primary. No need to decide now. See who runs and how they perform.
Obama dominated both elections. I think he was unbeatable. If we get a candidate with that level of talent, we win, regardless of race and gender.
And we see candidates with that kind of communications skill every twenty years or so - Obama, Clinton, Reagan, JFK, FDR, etc. So maybe we’re due!
Meanwhile, the matter of looking for someone who’s unusually exciting and different and on whom a large slice of voters can project their aspirations did give us Obama but it also gave us Trump. But yes, it is a huge challenge in the USA of 2026 AD to try to sell competence and clearheadedness, whatever your race, gender, or ideological inclination, when so many voters are looking for someone who’ll promise with a straight face to just fix whatever’s making you upset and not make you change anything.
From your keypad to God’s ears!
Note that all of the ones you named except Obama were white, straight men. Hillary Clinton belongs in that panoply, except for the lack of a penis.
Hillary Clinton absolutely does not belong in that list. She was a good politician in many ways, but even you conceded upthread that she wasn’t good at communicating to large groups.
For real. My own romantic life echoes Hillary’s political life: while I think I’m a pretty good partner, I was terrible at flirting and dating. Hillary would have been an excellent administrative president, but her campaign skills were equivalent to my dating skills.
That said, keep an eye in 2032 on NC Attorney General Jeff Jackson. Having trouble finding it now, but I saw a poll recently with like a +22% approval rating, something pretty unheard of for a politician these days. He’s an excellent communicator – check out his video channel – and comes across as competent, ethical, and sane.
If you’re looking for a talented orator who doesn’t have a penis, AOC fits the bill.
Hillary Clinton was not remotely a highly talented political communicator.
All else being equal is being a white male an advantage? Maybe slightly. But there thousands of factors that effect a presidential election, and there is no evidence that gender/race is a particular major one. I really don’t understand, where the last election Democrats standing immediately improved from switching from a white man to a black women that people keep thinking that racism was the defining factor.
However this is how you become the party that cares more about optics than substance and is more worried about being woke or well antiwoke than solving problems. You drive far more people away if you skip over a better more popular candidate than you gain “racists” vote. Vote for us, we have no answers on housing, AI, or jobs, but we are 100% whiter and maler than before is not a great campaign. Most voters in fact didn’t not vote for Trump because he was more racist. They just didn’t care about the racism as much as other issues.