Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Sadly, we're not at a point where two women on the same ticket is a viable option for winning an election. There's still too much hostility among many voters towards it. I think such hostility is idiotic. But it is what it is.
I think Whitmer is currently in a much better position to affect change. Moving to VP would take her from Michigan and then basically take away any power she has. Obviously depending on her future ambitions, VP looks pretty good on a resume, but she can make a much bigger difference right now and for another 4+ where she's at. I do wonder given the current political landscape, how many people that would normally be turned off by women in the office would look past it. And if those that can't, how many were going to vote Democrat to begin with?
I feel I like this idea gets repeated a lot as if it’s a time-tested universal truth. But really, can you conceive of a voter for whom a brown, mixed-race woman as president is just fine, but a second woman is a bridge too far? In other words, anyone who has a problem with two women on the ticket probably wasn’t going to vote for Harris anyway.
The same goes for a VP candidate who is gay (Buttigieg), Jewish (Shapiro), or, I dunno, bald (Kelly).
I can definitely conceive of voters for whom an entirely female ticket is a bridge too far.
I agree in principle, but people have messed up subconscious prejudices that will definitely reveal themselves statistically in nationwide voting habits.
This is the continual refrain whenever the Democrats think about putting forward someone who isn't a white man. Nominally left people were saying the same thing about a black president in 2008. There's always this appeal from people who say they totally think it's dumb, but we need to think of the sensibilities of bigots. Then we do the thing anyway and it turns out most people have bigger issues to think about and those that are dedicated to their prejudice already recognize that the Republicans are their party.
Stop playing devil's advocate for sexist boogeymen and just live your values. The Republicans know that sexism isn't a winning issue with undecided voters, that's why they're telling their base to STFU. Democrats don't need to help enforce the social structure of some imagined gettable bigots.
I'm fine with running a qualified man (or white man) as the VP to appeal to the most voters possible. Same with running a qualified black woman or any other demographic they want to appeal to.
If our candidates became man/woman, woman/man as the standard, that would be fine with me.
I love that we care what bigots think, but not what progressives think.
Maybe if progressives came out in bigger numbers than bigots, they'd have more of a say in how the country is run.
You'd rather court bigots than progressives right after you got a huge demonstration that progressives are willing to vote for a compromise candidate.
Centrists were against Harris running and used the exact same "the bigots we love and respect won't like her" argument.
Want to court bigots over progressives? No I wouldn't personally.
Sadly, politics isn't based upon who you want to be besties with, it's based on what you can convince a certain percentage of the electorate to vote for.
If progressives made up a larger portion if the electorate than bigots, they'd a better seat at the table.
All political parties favor the old not because of some trite respect for the elderly BS, they favor the old because they fucking vote in massive numbers, while the young simply don't.
Politicians need to be elected to enact policy. You want your group to be a bigger hand in policy? Make your group a bigger part of the electorate.
If progressives made up a larger portion if the electorate than bigots, they’d a better seat at the table.
Bigots don't vote for Democrats already. Courting them is a fool's errand.
All political parties favor the old not because of some trite respect for the elderly BS, they favor the old because they fucking vote in massive numbers, while the young simply don’t.
Young people are registering in droves right now because the party ignored the bigots. You just got a demonstration that addressing the concerns of young people works. Bigots were voting for Trump before and they're voting for Trump now. But since the party covets votes they're never going to get over votes they can get, we'll probably get some dopey Werther's Original enthusiast who thinks young people have it too easy.
So if progressives have so many votes to offer and are the key to gaining political power, why don't progressives dictate who the president/congress is?
If they're such an easy key to power, why aren't politicians on both sides of the isle getting in line to get progressive or young votes to vote for them?
Are all politicians and all the staticians running their campaigns stupid????
So if progressives have so many votes to offer and are the key to gaining political power, why don’t progressives dictate who the president/congress is?
Because donors do that.
If they’re such an easy key to power, why aren’t politicians on both sides of the isle getting in line to get progressive or young votes to vote for them?
Because donors don't want them to do that.
Are all politicians and all the staticians running their campaigns stupid???
gestures broadly at results
Unfortunately we still have to accommodate for moderate bigots when it comes to gender, race etc of candidates. Hopefully once Gen Z and Gen A really get into voting that race/gender intolerance for politicians won't be a factor any more.
Bigots are given greater consideration than progressives.
It's like the party regrets the Civil Rights Act because of all the dixiecrats who jumped ship.
She said she didn't want to run as VP! She wants to stay in Michigan and get stuff done on the ground.
Politicians have a habit of saying they don't want to run up until the instant they're like "well, you twisted my arm."
She is a power house and good thing for Michigan, probably a good idea.
Yeah, I was so happy to vote for her last time. I would LOVE to have her on the big ballot this year, but I'm very happy she's dedicated to getting shit done here at home.
One could wonder if she's just loved on lemmy because she's agreeable to lemmy, but didn't she win her last gubernatorial race by like 55%-45%?
Pretty fucking impressive for a swing state! I hope to see her on the national ballot in a cycle or two