Talk Elections

Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Congressional Elections => Topic started by: BlondewithaBrain on January 01, 2012, 11:13:10 AM



Title: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: BlondewithaBrain on January 01, 2012, 11:13:10 AM
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.


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: tmthforu94 on January 01, 2012, 12:10:52 PM
Go for it!


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: Napoleon on January 01, 2012, 05:32:51 PM
Nominate women in anti-woman states? Smart move.


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: Cliff Racer on January 01, 2012, 05:47:09 PM
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.


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: Nichlemn on January 01, 2012, 09:18:34 PM
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.


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 01, 2012, 09:52:49 PM
No.


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: Meeker on January 01, 2012, 10:36:19 PM
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.


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: Vosem on January 02, 2012, 10:04:10 AM
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.


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: TNF on January 02, 2012, 12:21:12 PM
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.


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: BlondewithaBrain on January 02, 2012, 04:00:38 PM
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.



Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: Nichlemn on January 02, 2012, 08:25:44 PM
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!?!
 
Quote
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.
 
Quote
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?


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: krazen1211 on January 02, 2012, 09:57:45 PM

Vote republican - keep the state population uneducated and poor.

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



How has that worked in Washington DC?


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: politicalchick20 on January 02, 2012, 11:24:23 PM
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! :P)

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. :)


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: Niemeyerite on January 03, 2012, 10:17:32 AM
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! :P)

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...


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: politicalchick20 on January 04, 2012, 01:37:50 AM
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! :P)

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 :P), 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 :) .



Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: Mechaman on January 04, 2012, 07:47:25 AM
I know politicalchick has no problem with heterosexual white male Democrats running, hehehehe.

Also,

Nominate women in anti-woman states? Smart move.

Oh really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren)


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: politicalchick20 on January 05, 2012, 01:14:15 AM
I know politicalchick has no problem with heterosexual white male Democrats running, hehehehe.

Might as well as be honest! :P

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! :P



Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 06, 2012, 12:05:36 PM
You know who was selected in part because of her gender? Sarah Palin. 'Nuff said.


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: Free Palestine on January 06, 2012, 06:44:26 PM
Nominate women in anti-woman states? Smart move.

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


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on January 07, 2012, 12:44:32 AM
If the goal is to elect more women, wouldn't it make more sense to do this the more Democratic the state is?


Title: Re: Should democrats adopt women only shortlists in true red states?
Post by: TJ in Oregon on January 07, 2012, 01:00:35 AM
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 :D