If we had waited until America was “ready” for desegregation we’d still have whites-only schools and businesses today.
So we’re in agreement. No woman could ever hope to achieve something like being elected vice president, let alone run for president and win the popular vote.
Right?
Not untrue. However, the Civil Rights Act, and such, took place in the 1960s, under a Democratic president. And, it had the knock-on effect of ultimately costing the Democratic party a majority in most Southern states, when white Democrats felt betrayed, and left for the GOP.
Regardless, how relevant is that to the Democrats trying to wrest back the White House in 2028, when the GOP will have spent the previous four years tearing down the government, and 60 years of progress in equality? The Democratic Party urgently needs to win that election, and a “minority” candidate who some segment of swing voters (or even normally liberal voters) will struggle to support, due to their own personal biases, may not help, and may hurt.
ThelmaLou jumps off the hamster wheel.
Choosing not to run an otherwise popular candidate because they have the wrong genitals or skin color would just reinforce the current belief that Democrats are craven opportunists who will throw any and all minorities under the bus because a focus group and James Carville told them it only polls 49.8%. If you want Democrats to lose, then by all means make “white person with a penis” the deciding factor in picking the nominee.
Did I say that?
What I said was that it “may not help, and may hurt.”
If the Democrats can find a fucking rockstar candidate, like an Obama, who can energize voters and build a consensus within both the core party and various liberal bases, I don’t give a damn if they are a Hispanic lesbian atheist, or an Asian transgender Buddhist, a white Presbyterian cishet guy, or whatever.
No one who’s being talked about today is a fucking rockstar candidate; such a candidate would very likely be what is needed to break those barriers.
There’s no choosing except by the voters. There will (almost certainly) be a big primary with lots of candidates and the one that gets the most support from Democratic voters will become the nominee.
I think AOC might be, but we’ll see. She might wait another cycle or two.
“That was then, this was now”. I doubt a black man could get elected President anymore, and a catholic would be at a disadvantage. And women are going to be lucky if they keep basic rights like voting and the ability to own property or say “no” to sex; forget being President.
Has anyone told the Vice President that he can’t get elected?
There’s a very good chance that AOC is that candidate.
Then she’s going to have to do a lot of work in the next four years to convince more centrist Democrats, and liberal-leaning unaffiliated voters, that she is not an extremist liberal, because that is likely how a lot of people (beyond MAGAland) already view her.
He likely doesn’t intend to get elected, just take over as dictator after Trump dies.
If I had the time to look it up I could probably find posts on this board from spring 2005 saying the same thing about Obama.
At this time in 2005, Obama has been a U.S. Senator (his first national-level office) for all of two months; he won the 2004 race in part because other, higher-profile potential candidates (including the incumbent, Peter Fitzgerald) did not run, and because the initial Republican nominee had to leave the race in late July, due to a sex scandal. Obama had pretty much zero national reputation or visibility prior to 2005, and I’d be very surprised if there were many, if any, such posts here at that time.
Even if there were, Obama clearly overcame it. I literally said that AOC would have to overcome it; I didn’t say it was impossible.
Also, assuming that 2028 will work the way 2008 did is probably not a safe bet.
Too late to edit: I was at least somewhat incorrect in this; I had forgotten that, as a Senatorial candidate in the summer of 2004, he delivered a keynote speech at the DNC; it was probably the first time that many people outside of Illinois had ever heard of him, or seen him speak.
Not for a while.
A Black/mixed race woman almost got elected.
But didn’t, even against the most horribly awful opponent imaginable. a woman lost against Trump, twice. If they can’t win against Trump they can’t win against anyone or anything. The misogyny is just too strong here, and it’s only been getting worse.
Well, yes - if they’re popular despite being a woman, obviously they’ll win. I have no problem with a female candidate running. I just suspect they might have trouble getting the nomination. If they can manage it, let the chips fall where they may. Nobody on the SDMB has any say in the matter other than their lone vote.
I sincerely doubt it and for the same reason I don’t think Bernie Sanders could have ever won (i.e. it’s not primarily gender). I’m fairly progressive, as such things go. A majority of Democratic Party members aren’t by my standards and a majority of the country really isn’t. Plus like Hilary she’s been tarred so relentlessly (in this case as the face of the radical left), that she faces a very uphill struggle. First for a nomination I don’t think she can win and then for a general election I’m almost sure she can’t.
But then I never thought Trump would get two terms, so obviously I’m an idiot best ignored.
We’re literally having this conversation because of a CNN poll that suggests otherwise.
To be honest, I think she’d be better suited running for Schumer’s sear in 2028, and that Pritzker should be the nominee, but this pooh-poohing her chances just isn’t warranted.
Which one? I might have missed that discussion point - I assume you don’t mean the birthright citizenship one? Because being in favor of birthright citizenship doesn’t strike me as a primarily progressive issue. More a centrist and leftwards one.