Yes, it exactly is. What do you see as the difference?
This is such a steaming load of bullshit. She was unelectable in statewide office in Texas because she was a Democrat! IIRC they haven’t won a statewide election in Texas since 1994. If they had a record of being more successful when running white guys, you might have some kind a point, but as it is, you’re just piling on with the racism, misogyny and homophobia.
Have you noticed, when Rs lose they blame not having been far right or MAGA wingnut enough, and when Ds lose they blame having been too (liberal/diverse/woke).
Am I truly the only one that sees the difference between ‘we have to prevent minorities from holding political power’ and ‘in the current climate we should only support candidates that actually appeal to a majority of the electorate’???
Being a old, White, hetero, cis, male pretty much means a couple of decades of crazy Republican rule won’t effect me . . . why others don’t see that preventing that is the only thing that should matter to them is beyond me.
The only difference I can see is that one is salted with fake liberal tears of concern. There’s ample evidence that minority and woman Democratic candidates can win elections. You are ignoring that evidence in favor of pushing your racist and misogynist position.
Didn’t realize that not wanting fucking fascists to win elections made me a racist and misogynist!
Thanks for teaching me!
This makes a lot of sense, because winning in the EC isn’t exclusively a matter of winning the votes of a few thousand mushy purple state undecideds. It may be even more a matter of helping younger, more jaded voters see that there actually is a difference between the two sides. If a WOC scares off one suburbanite, maybe she also attracts three Gen Z-ers.
@crowmanyclouds OK, let’s try to lower the temperature here. I don’t think you are racist or misogynist and I apologize for implying so. But I do think that you have an excessively pessimistic view of the American electorate which is not at all supported by evidence and which leads you to pursue strategies which disadvantage minorities and women. From their point of view, there’s no practical difference between you and an actual racist/misogynist.
No, that’s basically what I’m saying, and not to put words in their mouth, but @LSLGuy as well.
But of course we’re racist, homophobic, and misogynistic when we suggest that a big piece of the electorate actually IS those things, and that the Democratic party has a choice- pander to them a bit through choosing ‘comfortable’ candidates, or choose ideological/PC purity, and choose candidates that make them uncomfortable and threatened, and thereby vote R.
Yep. And as a general rule, it’s usually smarter to tack to the center rather than going more extreme after you lose elections. So if we can’t be bothered to actually analyze each election on its own merits and just want to go with lazy rules of thumb, I’m glad we picked the less dumb one.
Take some responsibility. You’re the one who wants to establish a purity test, a purity test not based on policy positions but on skin tone, gender, and sexuality.
Harris is a former prosecutor and it shows. She doesn’t have that likable, relatable quality that comes so easily to people like Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama. Kerry, Dukakis and Gore lacked it too, and that’s what scares a lot of Democrats. Being competent, capable and qualified isn’t enough in this particular pageant. Of course it shouldn’t be this way, but it is.
Weird. Back in 2016 it was those of us who wanted to nominate the old white guy who were accused of being ideological PC purists. No satisfying some people.
Which is really funny since I’m not one of the folks complaining about White, hetero, cis, males getting elected and my position is only run a candidate, any candidate, that can actually win in the general election.
It’s quite a tell that you think the diverse team automatically can’t also be the “best” team.
It’s also quite wrong to apply a football metaphor to politics, as voters aren’t judging a set of skills and abilities. They’re assessing “who understands my problems and will represent me?” This is why millions of white voters came out against Obama purely because he wasn’t the right color. It matters.
Women & minorities are being tired of being told, against all evidence, that white men represent them better than anyone else. It makes them stay home. If those votes are important, then you need to show a face that looks like them.
Now, is having the right face enough to get the job done? No, of course not. More qualities are needed. Obama had those qualities in abundance. Does Kamala? It remains to be seen, but I’m not feeling fantastic about her. Of course I’d want her over any Republican, but I’m concerned that she has weaknesses that the diversity play might not overcome.
You may not have explicitly said that, but you were quick to jump to the defense of those who explicitly did.
And I don’t think anyone here has said we should nominate candidates who can’t win in the general election, so I’m not sure why you feel obligated to argue against that position.
I feel like Harris is only reading the lines given to her to announce things. And she only sees the script when it scrolls on the teleprompter. To be fair, that is how I saw Pence too. She does not have an agenda of her own.
They say she has to be in DC all the time in case they need a tie breaker for a vote but I would like to see her on the road working state by state . Not this week though with the debt ceiling vote. What is her opinion on debt reduction?
Fox mocks her and CNN ignores her. Remember though-if all we ask of a candidate is charisma we could end up with someone like Tulsi Gabbard.
Biden will be a better candidate if he replaces her with a progressive. But he has to elevate her not just fire her. A Court of Appeals judge or an Ambassadorship.
I want to see a big shakeup in Biden cabinet but that is for another day.
Democrats ran straight white guys for Texas Governor in 2010 and 2022, and Valdez’ performance was nearly identical. And she improved her percentage of the vote over the straight white female candidate Democrats ran in the previous election.
The people here who suggest we run the OWDs (old white dudes) instead of POC/women until the latter can “really win” (owing to the demise of the racist/misogynist right over time) are:
- Probably not racist or misogynist themselves.
- Giving in without necessity to the racist/misogynist right.
- Incorrect that POC/women can’t win for now.
After all, Republicans themselves are running POC (e.g., Tim Scott) and women (e.g., Kay Ivey) and POC women (e.g., Winsome Sears) and winning.
Further, as has already been pointed out, anyone racist or misogynist enough not to vote for a POC or woman is probably a solid R voter anyway, so it’s no big loss.
Regardless of the whole popular vote/Electoral College issue, Hillary is a bad example because she was hated by the right for decades before she ran. Harris doesn’t have that kind of baggage, but she does need to seem a bit more presidential and log some successes (either as VP or president).
There ya go progressives! Finally a party that you can support!