Democratic Women Governors may disappear after 2012
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 10:07:43 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Democratic Women Governors may disappear after 2012
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Democratic Women Governors may disappear after 2012  (Read 3430 times)
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,325
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 21, 2012, 12:28:06 AM »

Full story.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


I've wondered about this a few times. Why are female Democratic Governors so scarce?

Woman make up 23% of the Senate Democratic Caucus, but out of 20 Governorships, the only women are Perdue and Gregoire.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,380
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2012, 10:19:41 AM »

May be women are better legislators then executives?Huh))))
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2012, 01:02:48 PM »

May be women are better legislators then executives?Huh))))

There is actually a lot of truth to that.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,727
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2012, 01:14:15 PM »

uh huh
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2012, 01:25:22 PM »

May be women are better legislators then executives?Huh))))

There is actually a lot of truth to that.

No.
Logged
Supersonic
SupersonicVenue
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,162
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2012, 02:07:52 PM »

May be women are better legislators then executives?Huh))))

There is actually a lot of truth to that.

Wait. What?
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2012, 02:35:58 PM »

What a sexist thread! Wink
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2012, 03:21:39 PM »

I like female Senators more than I like female Governors on balance. Did not mean to sound as if I wasn't being totally subjective. Patty Murray>Christine Gregoire, Kay Hagan>Bev Perdue, Lisa Murkowski>Sarah Palin, and so on, I could name many examples.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2012, 01:33:55 PM »

I like female Senators more than I like female Governors on balance. Did not mean to sound as if I wasn't being totally subjective. Patty Murray>Christine Gregoire, Kay Hagan>Bev Perdue, Lisa Murkowski>Sarah Palin, and so on, I could name many examples.

Janet Napolitano, Ann Richards, Linda Lingle, were fine Governors. Even Sarah Palin was okay being Governor, as opposed to circus clown. Since I would like to see a Democratic woman in the White House, I would like to see more Democratic women Governors who I could one day maybe support. Senator is a somewhat more difficult journey to the White House than Governor because you likely have an extensive voting record, you lack the independence and freedom of Governors, and there is only one Governor per state, as opposed to two Senators.
Logged
Ike56
Rookie
**
Posts: 44


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2012, 08:41:57 PM »

"We might as well turn the clock back 50 years, because that's the last time we were without a sitting woman governor who supported reproductive choices and options, and that's what we're looking at again," said Sam Bennett, president and CEO and of the Women's Campaign Fund.

Egad!  I'm not sure that the remaining 18 male Democratic governors and the select pro-choice Republicans governors can possibly carry the massive water that those two female Democrats did all by themselves. Tongue

Good Lord, I see a ton of hyperbole in the press these days, but this takes the cake for recent comments.  Governors come and go; we may see no female Dems this cycle, but odds are we'll see at least one win in '14.  That this makes news when big things (SCOTUS, anyone?) are in the cycle amazes me.  Legit question: Would Ms. Bennett have her knickers in such a twist if there were a couple of pro-choice GOP governor's like Linda Lingle in office?
Logged
Purch
Rookie
**
Posts: 196


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2012, 04:37:52 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is actually the most melodramatic quote I've read in months.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,782


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2012, 09:26:42 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is actually the most melodramatic quote I've read in months.

Everyone knows all men are pro-life. Duh. Women will be oppressed for sure.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,582
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2012, 09:50:42 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is actually the most melodramatic quote I've read in months.

Considering her position and her organization, is it really all that surprising?  She is trying to scare donors into giving more money.  
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2012, 12:46:11 AM »

I don't see how this is the slightest bit meaningful except as an interesting tidbit. I could maybe understanding wanting Democratic women Senators as a means of giving a woman's perspective in the caucus. But there is no gubernatorial caucus (though there are pretty meaningless associations).
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,634
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2012, 11:53:16 AM »

I don't see how this is the slightest bit meaningful except as an interesting tidbit.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,325
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2012, 01:14:06 PM »

I don't see how this is the slightest bit meaningful except as an interesting tidbit.

Well, I thought I'd share this because its odd that the Democratic party relies heavily on the female votes, but its ironic that it will have less female Executives than the Republicans.

"We might as well turn the clock back 50 years, because that's the last time we were without a sitting woman g
I don't see how this is the slightest bit meaningful except as an interesting tidbit.
overnor who supported reproductive choices and options, and that's what we're looking at again," said Sam Bennett, president and CEO and of the Women's Campaign Fund.[/b][/i]

Egad!  I'm not sure that the remaining 18 male Democratic governors and the select pro-choice Republicans governors can possibly carry the massive water that those two female Democrats did all by themselves. Tongue

Good Lord, I see a ton of hyperbole in the press these days, but this takes the cake for recent comments.  Governors come and go; we may see no female Dems this cycle, but odds are we'll see at least one win in '14.  That this makes news when big things (SCOTUS, anyone?) are in the cycle amazes me.  Legit question: Would Ms. Bennett have her knickers in such a twist if there were a couple of pro-choice GOP governor's like Linda Lingle in office?

Yes, I do think the language in this article is a bit extreme as well.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2012, 02:02:14 PM »

It's not ironic at all. The Republican party also has many more minority governors.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,325
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2012, 03:08:48 PM »

It's not ironic at all. The Republican party also has many more minority governors.

Yes, its quite ironic. The Republican coalition is much less dependent on woman than the Democrats'.

I know you like to say the opposite of what I say, but doing so wouldn't work in this case.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 27, 2012, 05:54:02 PM »
« Edited: June 27, 2012, 07:21:57 PM by Beet »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you're not a Democrat, this really doesn't concern you. Ideally, Democratic women should be 50% of Democratic Governors or more. The fact that the Democrats hold about 20 Governorships and not a single one might be female next year is notable and unfortunate. It suggests that there are still some sexist elements in society that hold women back. This is nearly a century after women got the vote, so it's not as if we're making fast progress either. Thanks for posting this, Miles.
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,500
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 01, 2012, 06:40:14 AM »

The DCCC and DSCC actively recruit women to run, that has certainly been true this cycle with Patty Murray heading the DSCC.  There does seem to be a kind of network among female Democrats in Congress which encourages women to run.  If running women is a particular priority of the DGA, I have not noticed it.


Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2012, 06:31:06 PM »

We should recruit the best candidates, no matter their gender.
Logged
Ike56
Rookie
**
Posts: 44


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2012, 05:29:23 PM »
« Edited: July 02, 2012, 05:34:40 PM by Ike56 »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you're not a Democrat, this really doesn't concern you. Ideally, Democratic women should be 50% of Democratic Governors or more. The fact that the Democrats hold about 20 Governorships and not a single one might be female next year is notable and unfortunate. It suggests that there are still some sexist elements in society that hold women back. This is nearly a century after women got the vote, so it's not as if we're making fast progress either. Thanks for posting this, Miles.

As my societal better, I would like to thank you for pointing out what should and should not concern me, not to mention the broad swath of my ideological kinsmen (and women!). :-)

Now, back to the legitimate discussion; the ONLY thing that the statistics i.e. 2 female Dem governors out of 20, tell us is that while more female Democrats may have run for governor in recent cycles, just two made it past their primaries AND the General Election.  Unless you can cite open and easily identifiable examples of sexism, that charge is pure bunk.  To illustrate, I would point out that areas regularly identified as "bigoted" by the Left (that is to say, the South) have elected women Democrat"ic" (just for you, Miles!) governors just as frequently as have other enlightened (read "Progressive") regions.  If a state is willing to elect a female Democratic Senator but does not elect (!) to choose as its chief executive a Democratic woman, charges of sexism and what not may fly but have no discernible basis in reality.  Being a Senator is just as important as is being a governor, simply in a different way.  My home state of California has elected two female Democratic Senators for two decades now, yet has not seen a Democratic woman come close to winning the governor's mansion (since 1994, nary a single Democratic woman has come close in the primaries).  Are we to ponder that California is now sexist?  Perhaps Kamala Harris will straighten us out when Jerry leaves office in '14 (assuming that he is finally ready for retirement).  Until then, we'll keep the "women need not apply" sign hanging out on Sacto's doorstep.
Logged
Ike56
Rookie
**
Posts: 44


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2012, 05:30:48 PM »

We should recruit the best candidates, no matter their gender.

HEAR, HEAR!!!  Someone fetch this man a bottle of his favourite beverage. :-)
Logged
Mercenary
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,574


Political Matrix
E: -3.94, S: -2.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 06, 2012, 02:09:00 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you're not a Democrat, this really doesn't concern you. Ideally, Democratic women should be 50% of Democratic Governors or more. The fact that the Democrats hold about 20 Governorships and not a single one might be female next year is notable and unfortunate. It suggests that there are still some sexist elements in society that hold women back. This is nearly a century after women got the vote, so it's not as if we're making fast progress either. Thanks for posting this, Miles.

I don't understand why the sex of the candidate even matters so much. Perhaps yes it is unusual there would be none, but it doesn't necessarily imply sexism. In general there are less women who want to run than men, so naturally there will be less elective. From the ones who do want to run, perhaps their positions just aren't as satisfactory to voters as another candidates. I don't see why it has to be exclusively about their sex. I don't think an even 50% would actually make sense unless an equal number of women wanted to run for governorships as men, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,753


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 06, 2012, 03:13:28 AM »

It turns out there was no female Democratic governor in 1995 and 1996. There was no female governor for most of 1981 and 1982.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 11 queries.