What is behind political endorsements [Sharice Davids for Congress]?

We have this woman Sharice Davids, running for the democratic congressional nomination in my district in Kansas.

TheKC Star has endorsed her. But only for her positions NOT for her experience or qualifications.

And that’s the thing that gets me, she has no real credentials and hasnt accomplished anything.

She has NEVER held or even ran for political office.
She has never held a high paying job in Kansas (she worked on a South Dakota indian reservation)
She brags about having a law degree yet she has no law license in Kansas (her license is is South Dakota and Missouri).

And get this - she brags about being an MMA fighter yet she hasnt fought in 4 1/2 years, only had 2 pro fights, and lost 1 of 2. Not much to brag about there.

She also brags about being raised by a single mother. Huh? What “accomplishment” is that?
Yet the Emily’s List PAC is throwing $400,000 behind her (WHY?). Thewomans groups favor her. Finally, the gay groups have endorsed her which is interesting how she omits the gay endorsements in her political ads.

I dont get the endorsements? Why endorse someone just because they are a woman or gay or native american when thats about it? Why not look for actual qualifications?

Is she up against someone who has “real credentials”, but has the wrong positions? Because I think I’d pick someone who has the right positions over that.

I KNOW, women, amirite?

Your complaints about Democrats are getting progressively stupider.

Twenty bucks he has a “KOBACH” sign in his yard.

The article says why: “Davids will bring a unique array of life experiences to Congress, which desperately needs different voices and world views. But she also has distinguished herself with her hard work and intellect.” That’s not really hard to understand.

Not only that, but the article says:

And the way the hyper-partisan OP summarizes these two paragraphs is: “The KC Star has endorsed her. But only for her positions NOT for her experience or qualifications.”

Yeah. That’s clearly what they wrote, dude. You really read the hell out of that editorial.

Who are her opponents? Whom would you expect to be endorsed, instead? What are their credentials?

So the complaints are:

Hasn’t held office before…looked at our President lately?

Hasn’t held a high paying job… because that’s what is crucial to holding office. Apparently no one will cry for the poor oligarchs.

She has a law degree but only licenses on other states. Oh Noes!

She isn’t as MMA as the OP thinks she should be and only won 1/2 of her fights.

What has her opponent done in the meanwhile? Is he part of the disaserous “Kansas Miracle”?

It is a way to lend support to candidates that support some/most/all of the same views you do.

I’m also in this district.
Davids’ campaign has concentrated on her being Native American and LGBT (despite not mentioning the LGBT endorsements), to the exclusion of the qualifications mentioned in the editorial. I have nothing against her (or any of the Democratic candidates, for that matter), but I suspect that she won’t be able to beat Yoder in November - and that’s my main criterion for voting.
I expect I’ll be voting for Brent Welder, who has been beating Yoder in polling.

Good point.

I dont know. She is running in the democratic primary and I’m a registered Republican.

Yeah, she gets all this support for LGBT but doesnt have any of that in her ads. I mean, if she is sooo proud of being gay, why doesnt she mention it? HEREare some photos of her at Pride. Yet otherwise she hides it. Makes me wonder why gays are so behind somebody who is afraid to tell others.

In the republican primary I think I’ll vote Keegan. HERE is the endorsements from Mainstream coalition. Notice, they dont endorse Davids either.

And again, I just dont get why she brags about being this super MMA fighter when she obviously was bad at it?

Why the fuck do you CARE?

Ok, I get that.

But heck anyone can say things. Where is her history of supporting those goals? What laws has she helped pass?

Shouldnt a person before they run for congress, have first been in say the state legislature or been a mayor or heck even dog catcher?

Yet Emily’s list has given her $400,000?

Well if she wins she will be my representative so I think I have a say in this.

I just for you to know, I dont always vote R. I voted for Democratic representative Dennis Moore when he was our congressman.

You live in Kansas I see. Will you vote for her?

Ok, I’ll answer.

  1. Good point. But frankly my vote there was more anti-Hillary.
  2. Well this district is the wealthiest and most prosperous in the state with over a billion dollars paid in federal tax money. HERE is her bio which lists her proffessional career. Not much to brag about and I doubt she’s ever made more than $50,000 a year.
  3. Well then why does she brag about being a lawyer when she isnt one in her home state which she wants to represent?
  4. No, she’s mediocre MMA fighter yet that is thecenterpiece of her campaign ads.
  5. You got me. I dont know anything about the 5 other candidates for the democrats.

Neither has Trump.

Does making a lot of money automatically qualify you to run for office? There are plenty of people who didn’t hold high-paying jobs and still ran for office.

Chief executive officers and millionaires have no business in government. But, lo and behold, there are many who believe the opposite. Hell, we have a real estate developer in the White House, and how’s that going?

And, what’s the problem with working on an Indian reservation?

At least she practiced law in those states. There are also a lot of politicians who run in states they don’t necessarily work in.

Also: Trump brags about his Ivy League education

Whatever. You know, instead of fabricating a disingenuous question about the motivations behind the newspaper’s endorsement, why not just come out directly and say you don’t think her background and experience (whatever they may be) are important for the congress, and that you don’t think she works hard or is intelligent (maybe because she’s a woman, a Native American, or whatever)? Why play this petty, transparent rhetorical game?

You know what’s wrong with taking anything you say about Democrats seriously?

If a Democrat says something about themselves, you say they are bragging about it.

If a Democrat doesn’t say something about themselves, you say they are hiding it.