Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?

[BlondewithaBrain]

Thoughts? Just think its time to try something different and get people to break their habit from voting republican.

We have genuine middle class-poor people voting for a party that doesnt represent them. Look at wisconsin and ohio they want the people at the top to have all the powers and the little guy to accept low wages, no bargaining powers and no representation.

Democrats have to hammer the cheap labor conservative ideology. They fight for the ceo, cfo and directors and not real uneducated white voters.

When was the last time democrats seriously challenged in true red states? Maybe a female voice would make it fresh and bring new voters. Breaking habits is the key to winning new states.

[Jayhawker]

Go for it!

[Senator Napoleon]

Nominate women in anti-woman states? Smart move.

[Cliff Racer]

I'm sure those states will just love having their "acceptable" primary candidates chosen for them in advance. This idea would be pretty toxic. Furthermore, I don't even think its necessary, outside of the deep south individualistic Democrats have been able to do pretty well in recent times, even in states where you wouldn't think they could.

[Nichlemn]

How do they enforce this? At best, Democratic committees could make a policy of supporting female candidates, but other than that they can't do "shortlists" in the same way the parties do in the UK.

And it's highly unlikely to work, anyway. Superficial changes aren't going to make much of a difference. I guess they could try gimmicks given they have nothing to lose, but I think most of the utility in that would be for experimental purposes.

[Χahar]

No.

[Meeker]

I think there are definite benefits to having a female candidate and believe it's a net positive, but to exclude males as candidates entirely is both unwise and impractical.

[Vosem]

You remind me very much of a blonde I know in real life.

I would also like to note than blonde stereotypes are totally correct maybe 4/5 of the time, in my experience. Including this occasion.

[TNF]

Why should male candidates be denied the right to run for office? That'd be a great way to further the decline of the Democratic Party among working class white voters, male voters of all races, and make the party look rather extreme.

[BlondewithaBrain]

What have male candidates done since 2000 in many of these states..absolutely nothing.

Yes its a radical step but you just say less than 20% of congress is female and women represent 50% of our society. its wrong and this is an attempt to rebalance the right that is wrong.

The press would also bring attention to candidates and an intelligent competent candidate would get publicity. From the publicity they would have to defend the process but also they would then beable to highlight in alot of red states how republican after republican sent to washington or to the governors office they have remained the embarasssment of america. they are still poor there is no middle class and the educational standards are a joke compared with the rest of the country.

Vote republican - keep the state population uneducated and poor.

Vote democrat - change your children/grandchildren's future.

[Nichlemn]

What have male candidates done since 2000 in many of these states..absolutely nothing.

Well some, like Walt Minnick, have occasionally won. Maybe Minnick wouldn't have won if he was a woman.

Also, you could apply the same logic to "white candidates", "heterosexual candidates" "college-educated candidates", etc. Democrats keep losing with candidates who live in dwellings? Why don't they run homeless candidates!?!
 

Yes its a radical step but you just say less than 20% of congress is female and women represent 50% of our society. its wrong and this is an attempt to rebalance the right that is wrong.

No, it's a way to posture that you're in favour of gender equality while in fact organising it such that it will do as little as possible towards increasing gender equality in Congress. Doing it in winnable districts is far better, if that's your aim.
 

The press would also bring attention to candidates and an intelligent competent candidate would get publicity. From the publicity they would have to defend the process but also they would then beable to highlight in alot of red states how republican after republican sent to washington or to the governors office they have remained the embarasssment of america. they are still poor there is no middle class and the educational standards are a joke compared with the rest of the country.

Vote republican - keep the state population uneducated and poor.

Vote democrat - change your children/grandchildren's future.

Wishful thinking. It's a lot more likely that candidates who gain attention because of their relative novelty (and I don't think being a woman is sufficient to gain much attention) would find that the media focus is almost solely on the personal characteristics of the novel candidate and not the isues. Did Sarah Palin's VP candidacy substantially raise awareness of the issues she stood for? Has any other female candidate?

[krazen1211]

Vote republican - keep the state population uneducated and poor.

Vote democrat - change your children/grandchildren's future.

How has that worked in Washington DC?

[politicalchick20]

You remind me very much of a blonde I know in real life.

I would also like to note than blonde stereotypes are totally correct maybe 4/5 of the time, in my experience. Including this occasion.

Ouch. (Speaking as a blonde who is most certainly NOT a bimbo! )

But no, at the end of the day, only nominate who you think has the best chance, regardless of gender, or anything else you can think of. It's cliche to say it, but still the best way to go.

BTW: It's been awhile, guys! Haven't posted in ages.

[JulioMadrid]

You remind me very much of a blonde I know in real life.

I would also like to note than blonde stereotypes are totally correct maybe 4/5 of the time, in my experience. Including this occasion.

Ouch. (Speaking as a blonde who is most certainly NOT a bimbo! )

But no, at the end of the day, only nominate who you think has the best chance, regardless of gender, or anything else you can think of. It's cliche to say it, but still the best way to go.

BTW: It's been awhile, guys! Haven't posted in ages.

Hey, finally a girl posting here!!

I think democrats should nominate more women in every state, not only "true red states". However, people have to decide whom they prefer (or who is more electable).
And dems can win in GOP states (Kathleen Sebelius, Brad Henry, Ben Nelson, even Jim Matherson in Utah..). So there's always an opportunity to win in true red states...

[politicalchick20]

You remind me very much of a blonde I know in real life.

I would also like to note than blonde stereotypes are totally correct maybe 4/5 of the time, in my experience. Including this occasion.

Ouch. (Speaking as a blonde who is most certainly NOT a bimbo! )

But no, at the end of the day, only nominate who you think has the best chance, regardless of gender, or anything else you can think of. It's cliche to say it, but still the best way to go.

BTW: It's been awhile, guys! Haven't posted in ages.

Hey, finally a girl posting here!!

Well, I have before, it's just been awhile .

I do think though that effort should be put into putting as many women into Congress, or any office, so long as they are qualified/strong enough electorally to do so. I had a political internship during my final semester of college last spring (not saying what it was to protect myself, LOL ), and I had to do a research paper on a topic that related to my internship. I picked one relating to the reasons why so many women haven't run for office in my state, and I was lucky enough to interview several women in politics here for my paper. It was awesome.

And luckily, I got an A .

[Communists For McCain]

I know politicalchick has no problem with heterosexual white male Democrats running, hehehehe.

Also,

Nominate women in anti-woman states? Smart move.

Oh really?

[politicalchick20]

I know politicalchick has no problem with heterosexual white male Democrats running, hehehehe.

Might as well as be honest!

But yes, I'm a girl who has a few Politicrushes (yes, I just invented a word! It works!)

Come on, of course I'm going to have a crush on Martin O'Malley. I'm only human, people!

[RogueBeaver]

You know who was selected in part because of her gender? Sarah Palin. 'Nuff said.

[Free Palestine]

Nominate women in anti-woman states? Smart move.

Neither party is really "pro-woman."  America is still a patriarchy, remember that.

[asexual trans victimologist]

If the goal is to elect more women, wouldn't it make more sense to do this the more Democratic the state is?

[TJ in Wisco]

Please do. And make sure to dump as many popular Democratic men as possible in the process. Don't focus on finding the best candidates. Only run women. That sounds like a great strategy